Skip to main content

Full text of "Autobiography of seventy years"

See other formats


(QurncU  IniucraitH  ilibrarg 

3tt|aca,  Keiu  ^oclt 



THE    GIFT    OP 


CLASS    OF    1889 


FEB  1  a  IWi  OATE  DUE 

-^    W      ^\J'^<j' 


^  #^^^^ 





3   1924  096  464  320 

Cornell  University 

The  original  of  this  book  is  in 
the  Cornell  University  Library. 

There  are  no  known  copyright  restrictions  in 
the  United  States  on  the  use  of  the  text. 


From  a  photograph  taken  by  Brady,  Washington,  about  1869, 
when  Mr.  Hoar  entered  the  House  of  Representatives 












Published  November,  1903. 





Election  to  the  Senate 2 

President  Hayes 7 

Cabinet  of  President  Hayes 16 


Attempt  to  Reopen  the  Question  op  the  Title  to  the 


The  Senate  in  1877 45 

Leaders  op  the  Senate  in  1877 52 

Committee  Service  in  the  Senate 94 

The  River  and  Harbor  Bill 112 

Chinese  Treaty  and  Legislation 120 

The  Washington  Treaty  and  the  Geneva  Award 127 



The  President's  Power  of  Removal 135 

Fisheries  1^^ 

The  Federal  Elections  Bill 150 


Constitutional  Amendments  and  the  Presidential  Succes- 
sion Bill 166 

President  Cleveland  's  Judges 172 

Some  Southern  Senators 181 

CusHMAN  Kellogg  Davis 193 

George  Bancroft 202 


Visits  to  England  (1860,  1868,  1871) 207 

Visits  to  England,  1892 214 

Visits  to  England,  1896 231 

Silver  and  Bimetallism 242 


Visits  to  England,  1899 254 

A  Republican  Platform 263 

Official  Salaries 266 

Propriety  in  Debate 269 

The  Fish-ball  Letter 271 

The  Bird  Petition 274 

The  a.  p.  A.  Controversy 278 

The  English  Mission 294 


President  Roosevelt  and  the  Syrian  Children 296 

National  Bankruptcy 300 

The  Philippine  Islands 304 

Appointments  to  Office 327 

Oratory  and  Some  Orators  I  Have  Heard 330 


Trusts 363 

Recollections  op  the  Worcester  Bar 367 

Some  Judges  I  Have  Kjstown 387 

Political  and  Religious  Faith 434 

Edward  Everett  Hale 441 

The  Forest  of  Dean  (by  John  Bellows) 449 

Index  471 




I  HAVE  every  reason  to  believe  that  my  constituents  in  the 
Worcester  district  would  have  gladly  continued  me  in  the 
public  service  for  ten  years  longer,  if  I  had  been  so  minded. 
I  presided  over  the  District  Convention  that  nominated  my 
successor.  Before  the  convention  was  called  to  order  the 
delegates  crowded  around  me  and  urged  me  to  reconsider 
my  refusal  to  stand  for  another  term,  and  declared  they 
would  gladly  nominate  me  again.  But  I  persisted  in  my 
refusal.  I  supposed  then  that  my  political  career  was 
ended.  My  home  and  my  profession  and  my  library  had 
an  infinite  attraction  for  me.  I  had  become  thoroughly  sick 
of  Washington  and  politics  and  public  life. 

But  the  Eepublican  Party  in  Massachusetts  was  having 
a  death  struggle  with  General  Butler.  That  very  able, 
adroit  and  ambitious  man  was  attempting  to  organize  the 
political  forces  of  the  State  into  a  Butler  party,  and  to 
make  them  the  instrument  of  his  ambitions.  He  had  in 
some  mysterious  way  got  the  ear  of  General  Grant  and  the 
control  of  the  political  patronage  of  the  State,  so  far  as 
the  United  States  offices  were  concerned.  I  had  denounced 
him  and  his  methods  with  all  my  might  in  a  letter  I  had 
written  to  the  people  of  Massachusetts,  from  which  I  have 
already  made  extracts.  I  had  incurred  his  bitter  personal 
enmity,  and  was  regarded  with  perhaps  one  exception,  that 
of  my  older  brother  Judge  Hoar,  as  his  most  unrelenting 

The  people  of  Massachusetts  were  never  an  office-seeking 
people.  There  is  no  State  in  the  Union  whose  representa- 
1  1 


tives  at  the  seat  of  Government  have  less  trouble  in  that 
way,  or  that  gives  less  trouble  to  the  Executive  Departments 
or  to  the  President.  I  have  had  that  assurance  from  nearly 
every  President  since  I  have  been  in  public  life.  And  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  have  never  concerned  themselves 
very  much  as  to  who  should  hold  the  Executive  offices,  small 
or  large,  so  that  they  were  honestly  and  faithfully  served, 
and  that  the  man  appointed  was  of  good  character  and 
standing.  The  reform  which  took  the  civil  service  out  of 
politics  always  found  great  favor  in  Massachusetts.  But 
since  General  Butler,  in  some  way  never  fully  explained  to 
the  public,  got  the  ear  of  the  appointing  power  he  seemed 
to  be  filling  all  the  Departments  at  Washington  with  his 
adherents,  especially  the  important  places  in  the  Treasury. 
The  public  indignation  was  deeply  aroused.  Men  dreaded 
to  read  the  morning  papers  lest  they  should  see  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  removal  from  the  public  service  of  some 
honest  citizen,  or  brave  soldier,  who  was  filling  the  place  of 
postmaster  or  marshal,  of  Custom  House  official,  or  clerk 
in  a  Department  at  Washington,  and  the  putting  in  his  place 
some  unscrupulous  follower  of  the  fortunes  of  General  But- 
ler. The  climax  was  reached  when  Butler's  chief  lieuten- 
ant, Simmons,  was  appointed  Collector  of  the  Port  of  Bos- 
ton. Judge  Eussell,  the  old  Collector,  was  an  able  and 
very  popular  man.  He  had  given  Butler  a  sort  of  half- 
hearted support.  But  he  was  incapable  of  lending  himself 
to  any  base  or  unworthy  purpose.  He  was  compelled  to 
vacate  the  office,  much  to  his  disgust.  He  accepted  that  of 
Minister  to  Venezuela,  an  unimportant  foreign  mission,  and 
William  A.  Simmons  was  appointed  in  his  place.  The 
process  of  weeding  out  the  Custom  House  then  went  on 
with  great  rapidity.  Colonel  Moulton,  one  of  the  bravest 
soldiers  of  the  Civil  War,  who  had  been  under  rebel  fire 
in  a  Charleston  dungeon,  and  Colonel  A.  A.  Sherman,  a 
man  with  a  marvellous  military  record,  were  removed  to 
make  way  for  men  for  whom,  to  say  the  least,  the  public 
had  no  respect.  The  order  for  their  removal  was  recalled 
in  consequence  of  a  direct  appeal  to  President  Grant.  Mr, 
Hartwell,  the  Treasurer,  an  excellent  officer,  who  had  gradu- 


ated  the  first  scholar  at  Harvard,  was  removed.  Mrs. 
Chenoweth,  a  very  accomplished  lady,  widow  of  one  of  the 
bravest  officers  of  the  Civil  War,  a  member  of  Grant's  staff, 
who  was  filling  a  clerical  position  at  the  Custom  House, 
was  notified  of  her  removal.  That  also  was  arrested  by  a 
direct  appeal  to  Grant.  General  Andrews,  one  of  our  best 
officers,  afterwards  professor  at  "West  Point,  was  dropped 
from  the  office  of  Marshal,  and  one  of  the  adherents  of 
Butler  put  in  his  place. 

The  indignation  of  the  better  class  of  Eepublicans  was 
aroused.  Before  the  appointment  of  Simmons,  Mr.  Bout- 
well  had  been  elected  Senator,  and  Mr.  Eichardson  had  suc- 
ceeded him  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Mr.  Boutwell 
was  a  favorite  with  the  President.  Mr.  Sumner,  then  the 
senior  Senator,  was  on  the  most  unfriendly  relations  with 
the  President,  and  had  opposed  his  reelection  to  the  best  of 
his  ability.  It  was  not  considered  likely,  under  the  custom 
then  universally  prevailing  and  indeed  prevailing  ever 
since,  tbat  President  Grant  would  ever  have  made  such  an 
appointment  without  the  entire  approval  of  the  Senator 
from  the  State  interested,  with  whom  he  was  on  most 
friendly  terms  and  who  had  served  in  his  Cabinet  as  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury.  Governor  Boutwell  was  consulted 
about  it,  and  gave  it  his  approval,  although  it  is  understood 
that  afterward,  in  obedience  to  the  indignant  feeling  of  the 
people,  which  was  deeply  excited,  he  voted  against  the  con- 
firmation of  Simmons  in  the  Senate.  At  the  same  time  he 
informed  his  associates  that  he  did  not  wish  to  have  them 
understand  that  he  requested  them  to  vote  against  Simmons 
because  of  his  opposition,  or  because  of  any  so-called  cour- 
tesy of  the  Senate.  Simmons  was  the  manager  of  Mr. 
Boutwell's  campaign  for  reelection,  aad  General  Butler  was 
his  earnest  supporter,  giving  him  notice  and  urging  him  to 
repair  at  once  to  Boston  when  the  movement  against  him 
became  formidable. 

I  am  quite  sure  that  but  for  the  determination  of  the  people 
of  Massachusetts  not  to  endure  Butler  and  Butlerism  any 
longer,  and  probably  but  for  the  appointment  of  Simmons, 
I  should  never  have  been  elected  Senator.    It  is  likely  there 


would  have  been  no  change  in  the  office  until  this  moment. 

When  I  left  home  for  Washington,  at  the  beginning  of 
the  December  session  of  Congress  in  1876,  the  late  Adin 
Thayer  told  me  that  some  of  the  Eepublicans  had  got  sick 
of  Butler's  rule,  and  they  were  determined  to  have  a  candi- 
date for  Senator  who  could  be  trusted  to  make  zealous  oppo- 
sition to  him  and  his  methods,  and  that  they  proposed  to 
use  my  name.  I  told  him  I  did  not  believe  they  would  be 
able  to  get  twenty-five  votes,  that  Mr.  Boutwell,  then  Sena- 
tor, was  an  able  man,  and  that  I  did  not  think  the  fact  even 
that  he  was  understood  to  be  a  strong  friend  and  ally  of 
General  Butler  would  induce  the  people  to  displace  him. 
Mr.  Thayer  replied  that  at  any  rate  there  should  be  a 

I  had  no  communication  from  any  other  human  being 
upon  the  subject  of  my  candidacy  for  the  Senate,  and  made 
none  to  any  human  being,  with  one  exception,  until  my  elec- 
tion by  the  Legislature  was  announced.  My  oldest  sister 
was  fatally  sick,  and  I  received  a  letter  every  day  giving 
an  account  of  her  condition.  In  a  postscript  to  one  letter 
from  my  brother,  he  made  some  slight  allusion  to  the  elec- 
tion for  Senator  then  pending  in  the  Massachusetts  Legis- 
lature. But  with  that  exception  I  never  heard  about  it  and 
had  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

I  can  truly  say  that  I  was  as  indifferent  to  the  result,  so 
far  as  it  affected  me  personally,  as  to  the  question  whether 
I  should  walk  on  one  side  of  the  street  or  the  other.  I  did 
not  undervalue  the  great  honor  of  representing  Massachu- 
setts in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  But  I  had  an 
infinite  longing  for  my  home  and  my  profession  and  my 
library.  I  never  found  public  employment  pleasant  or  con- 
genial. But  the  fates  sent  me  to  the  Senate  and  have  kept 
me  there  until  I  am  now  the  man  longest  in  continuous  legis- 
lative service  in  this  country,  and  have  served  in  the  United 
States  Senate  longer  than  any  other  man  who  ever  repre- 
sented Massachusetts. 

The  last  three  times  I  have  been  elected  to  the  Senate  I 
have  had,  I  believe,  every  Eepublican  vote  of  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  I  was  assured— of  course  I  cannot  speak  with 


much  confidence  of  such  a  matter-that  I  could  have  all 
the  Democratic  votes,  if  necessary.    I  state  these  things 
with  a  feeling  of  natural  pride.    But  I  do  not  attribute  it 
to  any  special  merit  of  mine.    It  has  been  the  custom  of 
Massachusetts  to  continue  her  Senators  in  public  life  so 
long  as  they  were  willing,  and  were  in  general  accord  with 
the  political  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 
^  I  have,  however,  owed  very  much  indeed  to  the  modera- 
tion and  kindness  of  the  eminent  gentlemen  who  might  have 
been  most  formidable  competitors,  if  they  had  thought  fit. 
Just  before  the  election  of  1883,  when  all  the  discontented 
elements  were  seeking  a  candidate.   General  Francis  A. 
Walker,  one  of  the  ablest  men  ever  bom  on  the  soil  so 
productive  of  good  and  able  men,  was  proposed  as  my  com- 
petitor.    He  would  have  had  a  great  support.     I  think  he 
would  have  liked  the  service,  for  which  he  was  so  eminently 
fitted.     He  had  been  my  pupil,  and  had  gone  from  my  office 
to  the  War.     He  came  out  promptly  in  a  letter  in  which  he 
declared  that  in  his  judgment  Mr.  Hoar  was  the  fittest  per- 
son in  the  Commonwealth  for  the  office  of  Senator.     Gov- 
ernor Long  was  my  Eepublican  competitor  in  1883.    But 
on  two  or  three  occasions  since,  when  he  was  proposed  in 
many  quarters  for  the  office  of  Senator,  he  promptly  re- 
fused to  have  his  name  submitted  to  the  Legislature,  and 
declared  himself  for  me.    He  is  a  man  of  brilliant  ability, 
and  a  great  favorite  with  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth. 
General  William  F.  Draper,  lately  Ambassador  to  Italy,  a 
most  distinguished  soldier,  a  business  man  of  great  sagacity 
and  success,  having  inherited  from  his  father  a  right  to  the 
regard  of  the  people— a  regard  which  has  been  extended 
not  only  to  him,  but  also  to  his  very  able  and  excellent 
brothers — more  than  once  when  there  has  been  an  election 
of  Senator,  has  been  proposed  in  many  quarters.     He  has 
promptly,  both  in  letter  and  in  public  interviews,  rejected 
the  suggestion,  finally  with  impatience  that  he  was  put  to 
the  trouble  of  repeating  himself  in  the  matter  so  often. 

I  think  that  in  any  other  State  than  Massachusetts,  and 
even  there,  without  the  great  kindness  and  moderation  of 


these  gentlemen,  my  tenure  of  office,  which  will  have  con- 
tinued for  thirty-eight  years,  if  my  life  be  spared,  would 
have  been  much  shorter. 

Mr.  Sumner  was  in  general  accord  with  the  Eepublicans 
of  Massachusetts  on  important  questions  in  issue  in  his 
time.  But  he  bitterly  and  savagely  attacked  President 
Grant  at  the  height  of  his  popularity,  and  did  his  best  to 
defeat  him  for  reelection.  He  allowed  his  name  to  be  used 
as  candidate  for  Governor,  against  Governor  Washburn. 
The  defeat  of  Grant  would,  of  course,  have  caused  that  of 
Henry  Wilson,  candidate  for  the  Vice-Presidency.  Still  I 
have  little  doubt  that  if  Mr.  Sumner  had  lived,  he  would 
have  been  reelected  to  the  Senate  without  any  very  for- 
midable opposition. 



Peesident  Hayes's  Administration  began  under  circum- 
stances of  peculiar  diflfieulty.  In  the  first  Congress  of 
Ms  term  the  Democrats  had  a  majority  in  the  House. 
They  had  refused  to  pass  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill 
the  winter  before  and  would  not  consent  to  such  a  bill  in 
the  following  winter  without  a  condition  that  no  military 
force  should  be  used  to  maintain  order  at  elections,  or  to 
keep  in  power  state  governments  obnoxious  to  them.  But 
his  worst  foes  were  of  his  own  household.  There  were  two 
factions  among  the  Republicans,  one  led  by  Mr.  Blaine  and 
the  other  by  Conkling  and  Cameron.  Blaine  and  Conkling 
had  been  disappointed  aspirants  for  the  Presidency.  Mr. 
Hayes  and  his  advisers  were  in  favor  of  what  was  called 
reform  in  the  civil  service  and  utterly  rejected  the  claim 
of  Senators  and  Representatives  to  dictate  nominations  to 
executive  and  judicial  offices.  With  the  exception  of 
Stanley  Matthews  of  Ohio  and  my  colleague,  Mr.  Dawes,  I 
was,  I  believe,  the  only  cordial  supporter  of  the  President 
in  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Blaine  was  disposed,  I  think,  in  the  beginning,  to 
give  the  President  his  support.  But  he  was  rendered  ex- 
ceedingly indignant  by  the  refusal  of  President  Hayes  to 
appoint  Mr.  Frye  to  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet,  which  Mr.  Blaine 
desired,  as  it  would  smooth  the  way  of  Mr.  Eugene  Hale, 
his  most  intimate  friend,  and  strongest  supporter,  to  suc- 
ceed Mr.  Hamlin  in  the  Senate.  President  Hayes  was  will- 
ing to  appoint  Mr.  Hale  to  a  Cabinet  office.  But  Mr.  Hale, 
I  think  very  wisely,  declined  the  overture,  as  he  had  before 
declined  the  tender  of  a  seat  in  the  Cabinet  from  President 
Grant.  He  would  have  made  an  excellent  Cabinet  officer. 
But  he  was  specially  fitted  for  the  more  agreeable  and  per- 



manent  public  service  of  Senator.  I  do  not  know  wliat 
occasioned  President  Hayes's  reluctance  to  comply  with 
Mr.  Blaine's  desire.  But  it  was  a  fortunate  decision  for 
Mr.  Frye.  If  lie  had  gone  into  the  Cabinet,  in  all  likelihood 
the  people  of  Maine  would  have  chosen  another  Senator 
when  Mr.  Blaine  became  Secretary  of  State  under  Garfield 
in  1881,  and  according  to  the  habit  of  the  people  of  that 
State  would  have  continued  him  in  their  service.  So  Mr. 
Frye 's  brilliant  and  useful  career  in  the  Senate  would  have 
been  wanting  to  the  history  of  the  Republic. 

I  had  myself  something  to  do  with  the  selection  of  the 
Cabinet.  I  had  been  a  member  of  the  Convention  held  at 
Cincinnati  that  had  nominated  President  Hayes.  The 
Massachusetts  delegation  had  turned  the  scale  between  him 
and  Blaine.  Their  votes  gave  him  the  slender  majority  to 
which  he  owed  his  nomination.  I  had  also  been  a  member 
of  the  Electoral  Commission  to  which  the  contest  between 
him  and  Tilden  had  been  submitted  and  I  had  been  on  the 
committee  that  framed  the  bill  under  which  that  Commis- 
sion was  created.  I  had  voted  with  the  Democrats  of  the 
House  to  support  that  bill  against  the  judgment  of  a  large 
majority  of  the  Republicans.  I  agreed  with  President 
Hayes  in  the  matter  of  a  reform  in  the  civil  service  and  .in 
his  desire  to  free  the  Executive  power  from  the  trammel 
of  senatorial  dictation. 

I  had  formed  a  strong  friendship  with  Mr.  McCrary  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  and  had  earnestly  com- 
mended him  to  the  President  for  appointment  to  the  office 
of  Attorney-General.  I  did  not  expect  to  make  any  other 
recommendation.  There  had  been  an  unfortunate  es- 
trangement between  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts  and 
of  Maine  by  reason  of  the  refusal  of  the  Massachusetts 
delegation  to  support  Mr.  Blaine  for  the  Presidency.  I 
thought  it  desirable  for  the  interest  of  the  Republican  Party 
that  that  breach  should  be  healed  and  especially  desirable 
that  the  incoming  administration,  so  beset  with  difficulty, 
should  have  the  powerful  support  of  Mr.  Blaine  and  of 
those  Republicans  of  whom  he  was  the  leader  and  favorite. 
So  I  thought  it  best  that  he  should  be  consulted  in  the  mat- 


ter  of  the  selection  of  a  Cabinet  officer  from  New  England 
and  that  I  should  keep  aloof. 

But  the  day  after  President  Hayes's  inauguration,  rather 
late  in  the  afternoon,  Mr.  Blaine  came  into  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber and  told  me  with  some  appearance  of  excitement  that 
he  thought  the  President  wanted  to  see  the  Massachusetts 
Senators.  I  did  not,  however,  act  upon  that  message,  and 
did  not  go  to  the  "White  House  that  day.  I  was  at  my  room 
in  the  evening  when  Senator  Morrill  of  Vermont  came  and 
told  me  that  President  Hayes  wished  him  to  inquire  of  me 
what  Massachusetts  man  I  desired  to  have  appointed  to  a 
place  in  the  Cabinet.  I  told  Mr.  Morrill  that  there  were 
two  gentlemen  of  great  capacity  and  high  character,  either 
of  whom  would  make  an  excellent  Cabinet  officer.  One  of 
them  was  William  B.  Washburn,  and  the  other  Alexander 
H.  Rice.  Each  of  them  had  held  the  office  of  Governor  of 
the  Commonwealth,  and  each  of  them  had  been  a  very  emi- 
nent member  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  But  I  said 
that  each  belonged  to  what  might  be  called  a  separate 
faction  or  division  in  the  Republican  Party,  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  either  would  be  distasteful  to  some  of  the  sup- 
porters of  the  other.  I  added  that  there  was  one  man  of 
whom  I  thought  very  highly  indeed,  an  intimate  friend  of 
mine,  whose  appointment  I  thought  would  give  pleasure  to 
everybody  in  Massachusetts.  That  was  General  Charles 
Devens,  then  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court,  a  very  eminent 
advocate  and  orator,  and  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
soldiers  the  State  had  sent  into  the  war. 

Mr.  Morrill  went  back  to  the  President  with  the  message. 
Early  the  next  morning  I  received  notice  from  the  White 
House  that  the  President  wished  to  see  me.  I  complied 
with  his  desire  at  once.  Mr.  Dawes  had  also  been  sent  for 
and  was  there.  The  President  said  he  could  offer  General 
Devens  the  Department  of  War,  or  perhaps  the  Navy.  Mr. 
Dawes  thought  that  he  would  not  be  willing  to  accept  the 
latter.  I  told  the  President  that  I  thought  he  would ;  that 
General  Devens  was  a  native  of  Charlestown.  He  had  al- 
ways taken  great  interest  in  the  Navy.  He  had  known  a 
great  many  of  the  old  and  famous  naval  officers,  and  some 


of  his  near  relatives  had  been  in  that  service.  But  the 
President  finally  authorized  me  to  send  a  telegram  to  Gen- 
eral Devens  offering  him  the  Department  of  War.  I  sent 
the  telegram  and  requested  Devens  to  come  at  once  to  Wash- 
ington, which  he  did.  At  the  same  time,  the  President 
stated  his  purpose  to  offer  Mr.  McCrary  the  Department 
of  Justice.  In  the  course  of  the  day,  however,  it  was  re- 
ported to  the  President  that  Mr.  McCrary  had  formed  a 
decided  opinion  in  favor  of  the  McGarrahan  claim,  a  claim 
which  affected  large  and  valuable  mining  properties  in  Cali- 
fornia. Most  persons  who  had  investigated  the  claim  be- 
lieved it  to  be  utterly  fraudulent.  There  were  many  per- 
sons of  great  influence  who  were  interested  in  the  mining 
property  affected.  They  strongly  appealed  to  the  Presi- 
dent not  to  place  in  the  office  of  Attorney-Greneral  a  man 
who  was  committed  in  favor  of  the  claim.  The  President 
then  asked  me  if  I  thought  General  Devens  would  be  will- 
ing to  accept  the  office  of  Attorney-General,  and  exchange  it 
for  that  of  Secretary  of  War  later,  when  the  McGarrahan 
claim  had  been  disposed  of  so  far  as  Executive  action  was 
concerned.  I  told  the  President  that  I  thought  he  would. 
When  General  Devens  arrived  I  stated  the  case  to  him. 
He  said  he  should  be  unwilling  to  agree  to  such  an  arrange- 
ment. He  would  be  willing  to  accept  the  office  in  the  begin- 
ning, but  if  he  were  to  give  up  the  office  of  Attorney-General 
after  having  once  undertaken  it,  he  might  be  thought  to 
have  failed  to  discharge  his  duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
President,  or  that  of  the  public.  He  was  unwilling  to  take 
that  risk. 

So  the  President  determined  to  offer  the  Department  of 
Justice  to  General  Devens,  and  the  Department  of  War  to 
Mr.  McCrary,  a  good  deal  to  the  disappointment  of  the  lat- 
ter. All  McCrary 's  ambitions  in  life  were  connected  with 
his  profession.  He  took  the  first  opportunity  to  leave  the 
Executive  Department  for  a  judicial  career. 

The  other  members  of  the  Cabinet  were:  William  M. 
Evarts,  Secretary  of  State;  John  Sherman,  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury ;  Carl  Schurz,  Secretary  of  the  Interior ;  David 


M.  Key,  Postmaster-General;  Eicliard  M.  Thompson,  of 
Indiana,  Secretary  of  the  Navy. 

President  Hayes  was  a  simple-hearted,  sincere,  strong 
and  wise  man.  He  is  the  only  President  of  the  United 
States  who  promised,  when  he  was  a  candidate  for  office,  not 
to  be  a  candidate  again,  who  kept  his  pledge.  He  carried 
out  the  principles  of  Civil  Service  Eeform  more  faithfully 
than  any  other  President  before  or  since  down  to  the  acces- 
sion of  President  Eoosevelt.  General  Grant  in  his  "Me- 
moirs" praises  the  soldierly  quality  of  President  Hayes 
very  highly.  He  was  made  Brigadier-General  on  the  rec- 
ommendation of  Sheridan,  and  brevetted  Major-General  for 
gallant  and  distinguished  services.  He  wrote,  after  the 
Presidential  election,  to  John  Sherman,  as  follows:  "You 
feel,  I  am  sure,  as  I  do  about  this  whole  business.  A  fair 
election  would  have  given  us  about  forty  electoral  votes  at 
the  South,  at  least  that  many;  but  we  must  not  allow  our 
friends  to  defeat  one  outrage  by  another.  There  must  be 
nothing  curved  on  our  part.  Let  Mr.  Tilden  have  the  place 
by  violence,  intimidation  and  fraud  rather  than  undertake 
to  prevent  it  by  means  that  will  not  bear  the  severest 
scrutiny. ' ' 

He  upheld  the  good  faith  of  the  nation  in  his  veto  of  the 
bill  to  authorize  the  coinage  of  the  silver  dollar  of  412| 
grains,  and  to  restore  its  legal  tender  character  in  1878 ;  and 
in  his  veto  of  the  bill  violating  our  treaty  with  China.  He 
grew  steadily  in  public  favor  with  all  parties,  and  with  all 
parts  of  the  country,  as  his  Administration  went  on.  Un- 
der his  Administration  the  resumption  of  specie  payments 
was  accomplished;  and,  in  spite  of  the  great  difficulties 
caused  by  the  factional  opposition  in  his  own  party,  he 
handed  down  his  office  to  a  Bepublican  successor. 

The  weakness  and  folly  of  the  charge  against  the  decision 
of  the  Electoral  Commission,  that  it  was  unconstitutional 
or  fraudulent,  and  the  fact  that  the  American  people  were 
never  impressed  by  those  charges,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
General  Garfield,  one  of  the  majority  who  gave  that  deci- 
sion, was  elected  to  succeed  President  Hayes,  and  that  sis  of 
the  eight  members  of  that  majority,  now  dead,  maintained. 


every  one  of  tliem,  throughout  their  honored  and  useful  lives, 
the  respect  and  affection  of  their  countrymen,  without  dis- 
tinction of  party.  Certainly  there  can  he  found  among  the 
great  men  of  that  great  generation  no  more  pure  and  brill- 
iant lights  than  Samuel  F.  Miller,  William  Strong,  Joseph 
P.  Bradley,  Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen,  Oliver  P.  Morton 
and  James  A.  Garfield.  There  are  two  survivors  of  that 
majority,  Mr.  Edmunds  and  myself.  Neither  has  found 
that  the  respect  in  which  his  countrymen  held  him  has  been 
diminished  by  that  decision. 

President  Hayes  has  been  accused  of  abandoning  the  re- 
construction policy  of  his  party.  It  has  also  been  said  that 
he  showed  a  want  of  courage  in  failing  to  support  the  Re- 
publican State  Governments  in  Louisiana  and  South  Caro- 
lina ;  that  if  the  votes  of  those  States  were  cast  for  him  they 
were  cast  for  Packard  and  Chamberlain  at  the  elections 
for  Governor  held  the  same  day,  and  that  he  should  have 
declined  the  Presidency,  or  have  maintained  these  Gov- 
ernors in  place.  But  these  charges  are,  at  the  least,  incon- 
siderate, not  to  say  ignorant.  It  ought  to  be  said  also  that 
President  Grant  before  he  left  office  had  determined  to  do 
in  regard  to  these  State  Governments  exactly  what  Hayes 
afterward  did,  and  that  Hayes  acted  with  his  full  approval. 
Second,  I  have  the  authority  of  President  Garfield  for  say- 
ing that  Mr.  Blaine  had  come  to  the  same  conclusion.  The 
Monday  morning  after  the  electoral  count  had  been  com- 
pleted and  the  result  declared,  Blaine  had  a  long  talk  with 
Garfield,  which  Garfield  reported  to  me.  He  told  him  that 
he  had  made  up  his  mind,  if  he  had  been  elected,  to  offer 
the  office  of  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Evarts,  or,  if  any- 
thing prevented  that,  to  Judge  Hoar.  He  further  said  that 
he  thought  it  was  time  to  discontinue  maintaining  Republi- 
can State  Governments  in  office  by  the  National  power 
and  that  the  people  of  the  Southern  States  must  settle 
their  State  elections  for  themselves.  Mr.  Blaine  by  his  dis- 
appointment in  the  formation  of  President  Hayes 's  Cabinet 
was  induced  to  make  an  attack  on  him  which  seems  incon- 
sistent with  this  declaration.  But  Mr.  Blaine  soon  aban- 
doned this  ground,  and,  so  far  as  I  now  remember,  never 


afterward  advocated  interference  with  the  control  of  the 
Southern  States  by  National  authority.  It  seems  to  me 
that  President  Hayes  did  only  what  his  duty  under  the  Con- 
stitution peremptorily  demanded  of  him.  I  entirely  ap- 
proved his  conduct  at  the  time,  and,  so  far  as  I  know  and 
believe,  he  agreed  exactly  with  the  doctrine  on  which  I 
always  myself  acted  before  and  since.  The  power  and  duty 
of  the  President  are  conferred  and  limited  by  the  Consti- 
tution. The  Constitution  requires  that  no  appropriation 
shall  be  made  for  the  support  of  the  Army  for  more  than 
two  years.  In  practice  the  appropriation  is  never  for  more 
than  one  year.  That  is  for  the  express  purpose,  I  have 
always  believed,  of  giving  to  Congress,  especially  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  which  must  inaugurate  all  ap- 
propriation bills,  absolute. control  over  the  use  of  the  Army, 
and  the  power  to  determine  for  what  purposes  the  military 
power  shall  be  used.  At  the  session  before  President 
Hayes's  inauguration  the  Democratic  House  of  Representa- 
tives had  refused  to  pass  an  Army  Bill.  The  House  refused 
to  pass  an  Army  Bill  the  next  year,  except  on  condition  that 
the  soldiers  should  not  be  used  to  support  the  State  Grov- 

It  became  necessary  to  call  a  special  session  of  Congress 
in  October,  1877,  by  reason  of  the  failure  of  the  Army  Ap- 
propriation Bill  the  winter  before.  The  first  chapter  of  the 
Statutes  of  that  session,  being  an  act  making  appropriations 
for  the  support  of  the  Army  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June 
30,  1878,  and  for  other  purposes,  enacts  "that  none  of  the 
money  hereby  appropriated  shall  be  expended,  directly  or 
indirectly,  for  any  use  not  strictly  necessary  for,  and  di- 
rectly connected  with,  the  military  service  of  the  Govern- 
ment; and  this  restriction  shall  apply  to  the  use  of  public 
animals,  forage,  and  vehicles." 

It  was,  therefore.  President  Hayes's  Constitutional  duty, 
in  my  judgment,  to  desist  from  using  the  military  power  of 
the  Government  on  the  30th  day  of  June,  1877,  when  the 
fiscal  year  expired  for  which  there  was  an  appropriation 
for  the  support  of  the  Army.  In  fact  he  removed  the 
troops  a  little  earlier.    But  he  received  assurances  from  the 


Democratic  leaders— whetlier  they  were  made  good  I  will 
not  now  undertake  to  inquire— that  there  should  be  no  un- 
lawful force  on  their  part  after  the  removal  of  the  troops. 
Mr.  Hayes  was  right  and  wise  in  securing  this  stipulation, 
if  he  could,  by  freeing  these  communities  from  military 
grasp  a  few  weeks  before  he  would  have  been  compelled  to 
do  it  at  any  rate.  Obedience  to  this  clear  mandate  of  Con- 
stitutional duty  was  not  in  the  least  inconsistent  with  a 
faithful  and  vigorous  use  of  all  the  other  powers  which  were 
lodged  in  his  hands  by  the  Constitution  for  securing  the 
rights  of  the  colored  people,  or  the  purity  and  integrity  of 
National  elections.  It  is  true  that  substantially  the  same 
vote  elected  Packard  of  Louisiana  as  that  which  chose  the 
Hayes  electors.  But  the  authority  to  declare  who  is  the 
President  lawfully  chosen,  and  the  Constitutional  power  to 
maintain  the  Governor  in  his  seat  by  force  are  lodged  in 
very  different  hands.  The  latter  can  only  be  used  by  the 
National  Executive  under  the  circumstances  specially  de- 
scribed in  the  Constitution,  and  it  can  never  be  used  by 
him  for  any  considerable  period  of  time  contrary  to  the  will 
of  Congress,  and  without  powers  put  in  his  hands  by  legis- 
lation which  must  originate  in  the  body  which  represents 
the  people. 

The  infinite  sweetness  and  tact  of  his  wife  contributed 
greatly  to  the  success  of  the  Administration  of  President 
Hayes.  She  was  a  woman  of  great  personal  beauty.  Her 
kindness  of  heart  knew  no  difference  between  the  most  illus- 
trious and  the  humblest  of  her  guests.  She  accomplished 
what  would  have  been  impossible  to  most  women,  the  main- 
tenance of  a  gracious  and  delightful  hospitality  while 
strictly  adhering  to  her  principles  of  total  abstinence,  and 
rigorously  excluding  all  wines  and  intoxicating  liquors 
from  the  White  House  during  her  administration.  The  old 
wine  drinkers  of  Washington  did  not  take  to  the  innovation 
very  kindly.  But  they  had  to  console  themselves  with  a 
few  jests  or  a  little  grumbling.  The  caterer  or  chef  in 
charge  of  the  State  dinners  took  compassion  on  the  in- 
firmity of  our  nature  so  far  as  to  invent  for  one  of  the 
courses  which  came  about  midway  of  the  State  dinner,  a 


box  made  of  the  frozen  skin  of  an  orange.  When  it  was 
opened  you  found  instead  of  the  orange  a  punch  or  sherbet 
into  which  as  much  rum  was  crowded  as  it  could  contain 
without  being  altogether  liquid.  This  was  known  as  the 
life-saving  station. 

Somebody  who  met  Mr.  Evarts  just  after  he  had  been 
at  a  dinner  at  the  White  House  asked  him  how  it  went  off. 
"Excellently,"  was  the  reply,  "the  water  flowed  like  cham- 
pagne. ' ' 



There  has  hardly  been  a  stronger  Cabinet  since  Wash- 
ington than  that  of  President  Hayes.  Its  members  worked 
together  in  great  harmony.  All  of  them,  I  believe,  were 
thoroughly  devoted  to  the  success  of  the  Administration. 

The  Secretary  of  State  was  William  M.  Evarts.  He  was 
my  near  kinsman  and  intimate  friend.  His  father  died  in 
his  early  youth.  My  father  was  Mr.  Evarts 's  executor,  and 
the  son,  after  his  mother  broke  up  housekeeping,  came  to 
my  father's  house  in  his  college  vacations  as  to  a  home. 
He  studied  law  at  the  Harvard  Law  School,  and  with  Dan- 
iel Lord,  a  very  eminent  lawyer  in  New  York.  One  of  his 
early  triumphs  was  his  opening  of  the  celebrated  Monroe- 
Edwards  case.  The  eminent  counsel  to  whom  the  duty  had 
been  assigned  being  prevented  from  attendance  by  some 
accident,  Evarts  was  unexpectedly  called  upon  to  take  his 
place.  He  opened  the  case  with  so  much  eloquence  that  the 
audience  in  the  crowded  court-room  gave  him  three  cheers 
when  he  got  through. 

He  rose  rapidly  to  a  distinguished  place  in  his  profes- 
sion, and  before  he  died  was,  I  suppose,  the  foremost  advo- 
cate in  the  world,  whether  in  this  country  or  Europe.  He 
was  counsel  for  President  Johnson  on  his  impeachment; 
counsel  for  the  Republican  side  in  support  of  the  title  of 
President  Hayes  before  the  Electoral  Commission ;  counsel 
for  the  United  States  against  Great  Britain  before  the  Tri- 
bunal at  Geneva.  He  was  counsel  in  the  celebrated  Lemon 
case,  where  the  ease  was  settled  as  to  the  rights  of  slave 
owners  to  bring  their  slaves  into  the  free  States,  and  hold 
them  in  transitu.  In  all  these  he  was  successful.  He  was 
counsel  also  in  another  trial  of  almost  equal  interest  and 
celebrity,  the  Tilton  divorce  suit— in  which  Henry  Ward 



Beecher  was  charged  with  adultery.  In  this  the  jury  dis- 
agreed. But  the  substantial  victory  was  with  Evarts's 

Mr.  Evarts  was  a  man  of  unfailing  equanimity  and  good 
nature,  never  thrown  off  his  balance  by  any  exigency  in 
diplomacy,  in  political  affairs,  or  in  the  trial  of  causes. 
Any  person  who  has  occasion  to  follow  him  in  his  diplo- 
matic discussions  will  be  impressed  with  the  far-sighted 
wisdom  and  caution  with  which  he  took  his  positions. 

He  was  always  a  delightful  orator.  He  rose  sometimes 
to  a  very  lofty  eloquence,  as  witness  especially  his  argu- 
ment in  defence  of  President  Johnson.  He  had  an  unfail- 
ing wit.  You  could  never  challenge  him  or  provoke  him  to 
an  encounter  without  making  an  abundant  and  sparkling 
stream  gush  forth.  He  never  came  off  second  best  in  an 
encounter  of  wits  with  any  man.  He  was  a  man  of  great 
generosity,  full  of  sympathy,  charity,  and  kindliness.  If 
his  biography  shall  ever  be  properly  written,  it  will  be  as 
delightful  as  that  of  Sheridan  or  Sidney  Smith  for  its  wit, 
and  will  be  valuable  for  the  narrative  of  the  great  public 
transactions  in  which  he  took  a  part.  Especially  it  will 
preserve  to  posterity  the  portraiture  of  a  great  lawyer  and 
advocate  of  the  time  before  the  days  of  specialists,  when 
the  leaders  of  the  American  Bar  were  great  lawyers  and 

I  do  not  think  Evarts's  capacity  as  a  diplomatist  is 
known.  Perhaps  it  never  will  be  thoroughly  understood. 
The  work  of  a  Secretary  of  State  in  dealing  with  foreign 
coimtries  is  performed  in  the  highest  confidence  and  does 
not  ordinarily  come  to  light  until  interest  in  the  transaction 
to  which  it  relates  has  grown  cold.  Evarts  conducted  some 
very  delicate  negotiations,  including  that  in  regard  to  the 
Fortune's  Bay  matter,  with  much  skill.  He  was  careful 
never,  for  the  sake  of  present  success,  to  commit  the  coun- 
try to  any  doctrine  which  might  be  inconvenient  in  the  re- 
mote future. 

I  think  Evarts  failed  to  appreciate  his  own  political 
strength.  He  was  in  the  early  part  of  his  life  devoted  to 
Mr.  Webster,  for  whom  he  had  great  reverence,  and  later 



to  Mr.  Seward.  He  sometimes,  I  think,  failed  to  take 
wholly  serious  views  of  political  conditions,  so  far  as  they 
affected  him  personally.  I  do  not  think  he  ever  knew  the 
hold  he  had  upon  the  respect  of  the  country,  or  upon  the 
affection  of  the  men  with  whom  he  was  brought  into  inti- 
mate association  in  public  life,  and  at  the  Bar.  He  was 
very  fond  of  his  friends,  classmates  and  kindred,  and  of 
his  college. 

After  the  defeat  of  the  Eepublican  Party  in  1884  he  was 
chosen  Senator  from  the  State  of  New  York.  He  had  been 
candidate  for  the  Senate  in  1861,  to  succeed  Mr.  Seward. 
His  competitor  was  Horace  Greeley.  Some  of  Mr.  Evarts  's 
friends  thought  that  the  old  supporters  of  Mr.  Seward,  and 
perhaps  Mr.  Seward  himself,  did  not  stand  by  him  as  his 
unfailing  and  powerful  support  of  Seward  would  have  led 
men  to  expect.  But  when  he  came  into  public  life  in  1885, 
and  took  his  seat  as  a  Senator  from  the  great  State  of  New 
York,  men  looked  to  him  to  be  the  great  leader  in  restoring 
the  broken  ranks  of  the  Eepublican  Party.  I  think  it  would 
have  been  easy  to  make  him  the  Eepublican  candidate,  and 
to  elect  him  to  the  Presidency  in  1888,  if  he  had  been  will- 
ing to  take  that  position  himself.  But  he  did  not  in  the 
Senate,  or  in  the  counsels  of  the  party,  take  or  attempt  to 
take  the  leadership  for  which  he  was  fitted. 

He  was  invited  in  the  spring  or  early  summer  of  1885  to 
address  a  political  club  in  Boston.  The  whole  country  lis- 
tened eagerly  to  see  what  counsel  the  great  Senator  and  the 
great  Constitutional  lawyer,  and  great  orator,  had  to  give  to 
his  party  associates  and  to  the  people  in  that  momentous 
time.  But  he  contented  himself  with  making  a  bright  and 
witty  speech.  The  club  was  known  as  the  Middlesex  Club, 
though  it  had  its  meetings  in  Boston.  He  gave  a  humorous 
description  of  the  feelings  of  the  Middlesex  man  when  he 
went  over  to  Boston,  and  those  of  the  Boston  man  when  he 
went  over  to  Middlesex ;  and  told  one  or  two  stories  of  his 
early  days  in  Boston,  where  he  was  born.  That  was  all. 
I  felt  as  I  listened  as  though  a  pail  of  ice-water  had  been 
poured  down  my  spine. 


But  modesty  and  disinterestedness  are  qualities  that  are 
so  infrequent  among  public  men  that  we  may  well  pardon 
this  bright  and  delightful  genius  for  that  fault. 

In  the  last  years  of  his  service  in  the  Senate  he  had  a 
very  serious  aflaiction  of  the  eyes,  which  rendered  it  impos- 
sible for  him  to  use  them  for  reading  or  study,  or  to  recog- 
nize by  sight  any  but  the  most  familiar  human  figures.  He 
bore  the  calamity  with  unfailing  cheerfulness.  I  believe  it 
was  caused  by  overwork  in  the  preparation  of  a  case.  The 
first  I  knew  of  it,  he  asked  me  to  meet  him  at  Concord, 
where  he  was  about  to  make  a  visit.  He  told  me  what  had 
happened,  and  that  his  physicians  in  Washington  and  New 
York  thought  there  was  a  possibility  that  the  congestion 
of  the  veins  surrounding  the  optic  nerve  might  be  absorbed. 
But  they  thought  the  case  very  doubtful,  and  advised  him 
to  go  to  Europe  for  the  benefit  of  the  journey,  and  for  the 
possible  advantage  of  advice  there.  He  wanted  me  to  un- 
dertake the  duties  devolving  on  him  in  the  Committee  of 
which  he  was  Chairman,  and  to  attend  to  some  other  public 
matters  in  his  absence.  His  physician  in  Paris  told  him 
there  was  not  the  slightest  hope.  He  thought  that  the  dark- 
ness would  certainly,  though  gradually,  shut  down  upon 
him.  He  received  this  sentence  with  composure.  But  he 
said  that  he  had  long  wished  to  see  Raphael's  famous  Vir- 
gin at  Dresden,  and  that  he  would  go  to  Dresden  to  see  it 
before  the  night  set  in.  This  he  did.  So  the  faces  of  the 
beautiful  Virgin  and  the  awful  children  were,  I  have  no 
doubt,  a  great  consolation  to  him  in  his  darkened  hours. 

John  Sherman  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  I  sat 
next  to  him  in  the  Senate  for  several  years.  I  came  to 
know  him  quite  intimately.  I  suppose  few  men  knew  him 
more  intimately,  although  I  fancy  he  did  not  give  his  in- 
most confidence  to  anybody,  unless  to  his  brother  the  Gen- 
eral, or  to  a  few  persons  of  his  own  family  or  household. 
I  paid  the  following  tribute  to  him  the  day  after  his  death : 

"It  is  rarely  more  than  once  or  twice  in  a  generation  that 
a  great  figure  passes  from  the  earth  who  seems  the  very 


embodiment  of  the  character  and  temper  of  his  time.  Such 
men  are  not  always  those  who  have  held  the  highest  places 
or  been  famous  for  great  genius  or  even  enjoyed  great  pop- 
ularity. They  rather  are  men  who  represent  the  limitations 
as  well  as  the  accomplishments  of  the  people  around  them. 
They  know  what  the  people  will  bear.  They  utter  the  best 
thought  which  their  countrymen  in  their  time  are  able  to 
reach.  They  are  by  no  means  mere  thermometers.  They 
do  not  rise  and  fall  with  the  temperature  about  them.  But 
they  are  powerful  and  prevailing  forces,  with  a  sound  judg- 
ment and  practical  common  sense  that  understands  just  how 
high  the  people  can  be  lifted,  and  where  the  man  who  is 
looking  not  chiefly  at  the  future  but  largely  to  see  what  is 
the  best  thing  that  can  be  done  in  the  present  should  desist 
from  unavailing  effort.  Such  a  man  was  John  Sherman, 
for  whom  the  open  grave  is  now  waiting  at  Mansfield.  For 
nearly  fifty  years  he  has  been  a  conspicuous  figure  and  a 
great  leader  in  the  party  which  has  controlled  the  Govern- 
ment. Of  course,  in  a  republic  it  can  be  claimed  for  no 
man  that  he  controlled  the  course  of  history.  And  also,  of 
course,  it  is  not  possible  while  the  events  are  fresh  to  assign 
to  any  one  man  accurately  his  due  share  in  the  credit  for 
what  is  done,  especially  in  legislative  bodies,  where  matters 
are  settled  in  secret  council  often  before  the  debate  begins 
and  almost  always  before  the  vote  is  taken. 

"But  there  are  some  things  we  can  say  of  Mr.  Sherman 
without  fear  of  challenge  now  and  without  fear  of  any  rec- 
ord that  may  hereafter  leap  to  light. 

"He  filled  always  the  highest  places.  He  sat  at  the  seat 
of  power.  His  countrymen  always  listened  for  his  voice 
and  frequently  listened  for  his  voice  more  eagerly  than  for 
that  of  any  other  man.  He  became  a  Republican  leader 
almost  immediately  after  he  took  his  seat  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  1855.  He  was  candidate  for  Speaker 
before  the  war,  at  the  time  when  the  Republican  Party 
achieved  its  first  distinct  and  unequivocal  national  success, 
unless  we  escept  the  election  of  General  Banks,  who  had 
himself  been  elected  partly  by  Know-Nothing  votes.  Mr. 
Sherman  failed  of  an  election.    But  the  contest  left  him 


the  single  preeminent  figure  in  the  House  of  Eepresenta- 
tives— a  preeminence  which  he  maintained  in  his  long  ser- 
vice in  the  Senate,  in  the  Treasury,  and  down  to  within  a 
few  years  of  his  death. 

"He  was  a  man  of  inflexihle  honesty,  inflexihle  courage, 
inflexible  love  of  country.  He  was  never  a  man  of  great 
eloquence,  or  greatly  marked  by  that  indefinable  quality 
called  genius.  But  in  him  sound  judgment  and  common 
sense,  better  than  genius,  better  than  eloquence,  always  pre- 
vailed, and  sometimes  seemed  to  rise  to  sublimity  which 
genius  never  attains.  His  infiexible  courage  and  his  clear 
vision  manifested  themselves  in  the  very  darkest  period 
of  our  history,  when  hope  seemed  at  times  to  have  gone 
out  in  every  other  heart.  There  is  a  letter  in  his  Memoirs, 
written  April  12,  1861,  which,  as  I  remember  the  gloom  and 
blackness  of  that  time,  seems  to  me  one  of  the  sublimest 
utterances  in  our  history.  The  letter  was  written  to  his 
brother  William,  afterward  the  General,  who  had  been 
offered  a  place  in  the  War  Department,  which  Mr.  Chase 
urged  him  to  accept,  saying  that  he  would  be  virtually  Sec- 
retary of  War.  The  offer  must  have  been  a  dazzling  temp- 
tation to  the  young  soldier  who  had  left  his  profession  and 
was  engaged  in  civil  duties  as  an  instructor,  I  think,  in  a 
college  somewhere.  But  John  earnestly  dissuades  his 
brother  from  accepting  it,  urges  him  to  take  a  position  in 
the  field,  and  foretells  his  great  military  success.  He  then 
adds  the  following  prediction  as  to  the  future  of  the  coun- 
try. It  was  written  at  midnight  at  the  darkest  single  hour 
of  our  history: 

"  'Let  me  now  record  a  prediction.  Whatever  you  may 
think  of  the  signs  of  the  times,  the  Government  will  rise 
from  the  strife  greater,  stronger  and  more  prosperous  than 
ever.  It  will  display  every  energy  and  military  power. 
The  men  who  have  confidence  in  it,  and  do  their  full  duty 
by  it,  may  reap  whatever  there  is  of  honor  and  profit  in 
public  life,  while  those  who  look  on  merely  as  spectators 
in  the  storm  will  fail  to  discharge  the  highest  duty  of  a 
citizen,  and  suffer  accordingly  in  public  estimation.' 


"Mr.  Sherman's  great  fame  and  the  title  to  his  country- 
men's remembrance  which  will  most  distinguish  him  from 
other  men  of  his  time,  will  rest  upon  his  service  as  a  finan- 
cier. He  bowed  a  little  to  the  popular  storm  in  the  time  of 
fiat  money.  Perhaps  if  he  had  not  bowed  a  little  he  would 
have  been  uprooted,  and  the  party  which  would  have  paid 
our  national  debt  in  fiat  money  would  have  succeeded.  But 
ever  since  that  time  he  has  been  an  oak  and  not  a  willow. 
The  resumption  of  specie  payments  and  the  establishment 
of  the  gold  standard,  the  two  great  financial  achievements 
of  our  time,  are  largely  due  to  his  powerful,  persistent  and 
most  effective  advocacy. 

"It  is  a  little  singular  that  two  great  measures  that  are 
called  by  his  name  are  measures,  one  of  which  he  disap- 
proved, and  with  the  other  of  which  he  had  nothing  to  do.  I 
mean  the  bill  for  the  purchase  of  silver,  known  as  the  Sher- 
man Law,  and  the  bill  in  regard  to  trusts,  known  as  the  Sher- 
man Anti-Trust  Law.  The  former  was  adopted  against  his 
protest,  by  a  committee  of  conference,  although  he  gave  it  a 
reluctant  and  disgusted  support  at  the  end.  It  was,  in  my 
judgment,  necessary  to  save  the  credit  of  the  country  at  the 
time,  and  a  great  improvement  on  the  law  it  supplanted. 

' '  The  other,  known  as  the  Sherman  Anti-Trust  Bill,  I  sup- 
pose he  introduced  by  request.  I  doubt  very  much  whether 
he  read  it.  If  he  did,  I  do  not  think  he  ever  understood  it. 
It  was  totally  reconstructed  in  the  Judiciary  Committee." 

Mr.  Sherman  was  delightful  company.  He  had  a  fund 
of  pleasant  anecdote  always  coming  up  fresh  and  full  of 
interest  from  the  stores  of  long  experience. 

He  was  wise,  brave,  strong,  patriotic,  honest,  faithful, 
simple-hearted,  sincere.  He  had  little  fondness  for  trifling 
and  little  sense  of  humor.  Many  good  stories  are  told  of 
his  serious  expostulation  with  persons  who  had  made  some 
jesting  statement  in  his  hearing  which  he  received  with 
immense  gravity.  I  am  ashamed  to  confess  that  I  used  to 
play  upon  this  trait  of  his  after  a  fashion  which  I  think 
annoyed  him  a  little,  and  which  he  must  have  regarded  as 
exceedingly  frivolous. 


He  used  occasionally  to  ask  me  to  go  to  ride  with  him. 
One  hot  summer  afternoon  Mr.  Sherman  said:  "Let  us  go 
over  and  see  the  new  electric  railroad,"  to  which  I  agreed. 
That  was  then  a  great  curiosity.  It  was  perhaps  the  first 
street  railroad,  certainly  the  first  one  in  Washington  which 
had  electricity  for  its  motive  power.  Mr.  Sherman  told  his 
driver  to  be  careful.  He  said  the  horses  were  very  much 
terrified  by  the  electric  cars.  I  said:  "I  suppose  they  are 
like  the  labor  reformers.  They  see  contrivances  for  doing 
without  their  labor,  and  they  get  very  angry  and  manifest 
displeasure."  Mr.  Sherman  pondered  for  a  moment  or 
two,  and  then  said  with  great  seriousness:  "Mr.  Hoar,  the 
horse  is  a  very  intelligent  animal,  but  it  really  does  not 
seem  to  me  that  he  can  reason  as  far  as  that."  I  told  the 
General  of  it  afterward,  who  was  full  of  fun,  and  asked 
him  if  he  really  believed  his  brother  thought  I  made  that 
remark  seriously ;  to  which  he  replied  that  he  had  no  doubt 
of  it;  that  John  never  had  the  slightest  conception  of  a  jest. 

At  another  time,  one  very  hot  summer  day,  Mi*.  Sherman 
said:  "Hoar,  I  think  I  shall  go  take  a  ride;  I  am  rather 
tired.  When  a  vote  comes  up,  will  you  announce  that  I 
am  paired  with  my  colleague?"  I  called  out  to  Senator 
BoUins  of  New  Hampshire,  who  sat  a  little  way  off,  and 
who  kept  the  record  of  pairs  for  the  Eepublican  side: 
"EoUins,  there  will  be  no  vote  this  afternoon,  except  one 
on  a  funeral  resolution  in  honor  of  Mr.  Allen  of  Missouri. 
Will  you  kindly  announce  that  Mr.  Sherman  is  paired  with 
his  colleague?"  Mr.  Sherman  got  up  in  great  haste  and 
went  over  to  Mr.  Rollins,  and  said:  "Mr.  EoUins,  Mr.  Hoar 
entirely  misunderstood  me.  I  never  should  think  of  an- 
nouncing a  pair  on  a  funeral  resolution. ' ' 

Mr.  Sherman  was  not  an  eloquent  man,  except  on  some 
few  occasions,  when  his  simple  statement  without  orna- 
ment or  passion  rose  to  the  highest  eloquence  by  reason  of 
the  impressiveness  of  his  fact  or  of  his  reasoning.  His 
memory  failed  in  his  last  years,  and  the  effect  of  age  on 
his  other  faculties  became  apparent  when  he  undertook  to 
deal  with  new  and  complicated  subjects.  But  he  was  clear 
to  the  last  when  his  great  subject  of  finance  was  under  con- 


sideration.  One  of  the  most  admirable  examples  of  Ms 
power,  also  one  of  the  most  admirable  examples  of  Ameri- 
can campaign  speaking,  is  his  statement  of  the  financial 
issue  between  the  two  parties  at  the  beginning  of  the  cam- 
paign of  1896.  It  struck  the  key-note.  The  other  Bepub- 
lican  speakers  only  followed  it. 

He  took  great  satisfaction  in  his  New  England  ancestry. 
He  frequently  spoke  with  great  pleasure  of  a  visit  made  by 
him  and  the  General,  some  twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago,  I 
think,  to  Woodbury,  Connecticut,  where  his  ancestors  dwelt. 
He  took  a  special  pride  in  the  character  of  his  father,  one  of 
the  Ohio  pioneers,  from  whom,  I  judge  from  his  account, 
both  his  illustrious  sons  derived  in  large  measure  their 
sterling  quality.  He  was  a  far-away  kinsman  of  my  own, 
a  relationship  of  which  it  may  well  be  believed  I  am  highly 
proud,  and  of  which  both  General  Sherman  and  Senator 
Sherman  were  kind  enough  frequently  to  speak. 

For  me  his  death  ended  an  intimate  friendship  of  nearly 
twenty-five  years,  during  many  of  which  we  sat  side  by  side 
in  the  Senate  Chamber  and  enjoyed  much  unreserved  social 
intercourse  in  long  rides  and  walks.  Among  the  great 
characters  which  America  has  given  to  mankind  these  two 
famous  brothers,  so  different,  yet  so  like  in  their  earnest 
love  of  country,  their  independence  and  courage,  their  devo- 
tion to  duty,  will  ever  hold  a  high  place. 

George  "W.  McCrary  had  been  an  eminent  member  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  where  he  had  the  confidence  of 
both  parties.  He  was  a  protege  of  Judge  Miller,  with 
whom  he  studied  law.  His  chief  ambition,  however,  was 
for  judicial  service.  He  was  much  disappointed  when  it 
was  found  desirable  that  he  should  take  the  Department  of 
War  instead  of  the  Department  of  Justice  to  which  Presi- 
dent Hayes  originally  intended  to  invite  him.  He  very 
gladly  accepted  the  offer  of  a  seat  on  the  Bench  of  the 
United  States  Circuit  Court.  He  filled  that  office  with 
great  credit,  and  it  is  highly  probable  would  have  been 
promoted  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  but 
for  his  untimely  death. 


He  was  the  originator  of  the  method  of  solution  of  the 
dispute  as  to  the  title  to  the  Presidency  in  1876.  It  ought 
to  be  said,  however,  that  it  was  done  in  full  consultation  with 
Mr.  Blaine.  I  was  then  quite  intimate  with  both  of  them, 
and  a  member  of  the  Committee  in  the  House  who  reported 
the  plan.  On  the  seventh  day  of  December,  1876,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  winter  session,  after  the  election,  Mr.  Mc- 
Crary  offered  the  following  resolution.     It  was  adopted. 

"Whereas  there  are  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the 
proper  mode  of  counting  the  electoral  votes  for  President 
and  Vice-President  and  as  to  the  manner  of  determining 
questions  that  may  arise  as  to  the  legality  and  validity  of 
returns  made  of  such  votes  by  the  several  States ; 

"And  whereas  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  all 
differences  of  opinion  and  all  doubt  and  uncertainty  upon 
these  questions  should  be  removed,  to  the  end  that  the  votes 
may  be  counted  and  the  result  declared  by  a  tribunal  whose 
authority  none  can  question  and  whose  decision  all  will 
accept  as  final:    Therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  members  of  this 
House  be  appointed  by  the  Speaker,  to  act  in  conjunction 
with  any  similar  committee  that  may  be  appointed  by  the 
Senate,  to  prepare  and  report  without  delay  such  a  meas- 
ure, either  legislative  or  constitutional,  as  may  in  their 
judgment  be  best  calculated  to  accomplish  the  desired  end, 
and  that  said  committee  have  leave  to  report  at  any  time." 

I  do  not  know  that  a  sketch  of  Eichard  W.  Thompson,  or 
Dick  Thompson,  as  he  was  familiarly  and  affectionately 
called,  properly  finds  a  place  in  my  autobiography.  I  knew 
him  very  slightly.  I  dare  say  I  visited  the  Navy  Depart- 
ment in  his  time.  But  I  have  now  no  recollection  of  it.  I 
had  a  great  respect  for  him.  He  lived  in  the  lifetime  of 
every  President  of  the  United  States,  except  Washington, 
and  I  believe  saw  every  one  of  them,  except  Washington, 
unless  it  may  be  that  he  never  saw  Theodore  Eoosevelt. 
He  was  a  very  interesting  character,  a  man  of  great  com- 
mon sense,  public  spirit,  with  a  wonderful  memory,  and  a 


rare  fund  of  knowledge  of  the  political  history  of  the  North- 
west. Indeed  he  was  an  embodiment  of  the  best  quality 
of  the  people  of  the  Ohio  Territory,  although  bom  in  Vir- 
ginia. His  great  capacity  was  that  of  a  politician.  He 
made  excellent  stump  speeches,  managed  political  conven- 
tions with  great  shrewdness,  and  also  with  great  integrity, 
and  had  great  skill  in  constructing  platforms.  Colonel 
Thompson  was  a  very  valuable  political  adviser.  It  has 
never  been  the  custom  to  select  Secretaries  of  the  Navy 
on  account  of  any  previously  acquired  knowledge  of  naval 
affairs,  although  the  two  heads  of  that  Department  ap- 
pointed by  Presidents  McKinley  and  Roosevelt  have  con- 
ducted it  with  wonderful  success  in  a  very  difficult  time.  A 
day  or  two  after  the  Inauguration,  John  Sherman,  the  new 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  gave  a  very  brilliant  dinner 
party  to  the  Cabinet,  at  which  I  was  a  guest.  The  table 
was  ornamented  by  a  beautiful  man-of-war  made  out  of 
flowers.  Just  before  the  guests  sat  down  to  dinner  a  little 
adopted  daughter  of  Secretary  Sherman's  attached  a  pretty 
American  flag  to  one  of  the  masts.  Somebody  called 
attention  to  the  beauty  of  the  little  ornament.  I  asked 
Secretary  Thompson  across  the  table  to  which  mast  of  a 
man-of-war  the  American  flag  should  be  attached.  Thomp- 
son coughed  and  stammered  a  little,  and  said:  "I  think  I 
shall  refer  that  question  to  the  Attorney-General." 

David  M.  Key  was  appointed  Postmaster-General  in  fur- 
therance of  President  Hayes's  desire,  in  the  accomplish- 
ment of  which  he  was  eminently  successful,  to  promote  har- 
mony between  the  sections,  and  to  diminish,  so  far  as 
possible,  the  heat  of  party  feeling  which  had  blazed  so  in- 
tensely at  the  time  of  his  election.  Mr.  Key  was  a  Demo- 
crat, and  never,  I  believe,  certainly  not  during  President 
Hayes's  Administration,  abandoned  his  allegiance  to  the 
Democratic  Party.  He  had  been  a  member  of  the  Senate 
from  Tennessee,  and  Lieutenant-Colonel  in  the  Confederate 
Army.  His  appointment  was  a  popular  one.  Mr.  Key 
administered  the  affairs  of  the  Department  very  satisfac- 
torily, in  which  he  was  aided  very  much  by  his  Assistant 


Postmaster-General,  Mr,  Tyner,  who  had  been  an  eminent 
member  of  the  House,  to  whom,  I  suppose,  he  left  the  mat- 
ter of  appointments  to  office. 

Carl  Schurz  was  a  very  interesting  character.  When  I 
entered  the  House  he  was  a  member  of  the  Senate  from  the 
State  of  Missouri.  He  was  admirably  equipped  for  public 
service.  Although  a  native  of  Germany,  he  had  a  most  ex- 
cellent, copious  and  clear  English  style.  No  man  in  either 
House  of  Congress  equalled  him  in  that  respect.  He  was 
a  clear  reasoner,  and  not  lacking  on  fit  occasion  in  a  stir- 
ring eloquence.  He  had  rendered  great  service  to  the  coun- 
try. The  value  to  the  Union  cause  of  the  stanch  support 
of  the  Germans  in  the  Northwest,  including  Missouri, 
whose  principal  city,  St.  Louis,  contained  a  large  German 
population,  can  hardly  be  over-estimated.  Without  it  Mis- 
souri would  have  passed  an  ordinance  of  secession,  and  the 
city  would  have  been  held  by  the  Confederates  from  the 
beginning  of  the  war.  To  prevent  this  the  patriotism  and 
influence  of  Carl  Schurz,  then  very  powerful  with  his  Ger- 
man fellow-citizens,  largely  contributed.  He  also  combated 
with  great  power  the  dangerous  heresy  of  fiat  money  and 
an  irredeemable  currency.  He  was  a  stanch  advocate  of 
civil  service  reform,  although  he  left  Congress  before  the 
legislation  which  accomplished  that  was  adopted.  So  he 
will  be  entitled  to  a  high  place  in  the  history  of  the  very 
stormy  time  in  which  he  has  lived,  and  to  the  gratitude  of 
his  countrymen. 

But  he  seems  to  me  to  have  erred  in  underrating  the 
value  of  party  instrumentalities  and  of  official  power  in 
accomplishing  what  is  best  for  the  good  of  the  people. 
When  his  Republican  associates  committed  what  he  thought 
some  grave  errors,  he  helped  turn  Missouri  over  to  the 
Democrats,  who  have  held  it  ever  since.  So  the  political 
power  of  the  State  since  Mr.  Schurz  abandoned  the  Repub- 
lican Party  because  of  his  personal  objection  to  President 
Grant,  has  been  exerted  against  everything  Mr.  Schurz 
valued— honest  elections,  sound  money,  security  to  the  en- 
franchised  Southern  men,   and   the   Constitutional   rights 


which  Mr.  Schurz  helped  gain  for  them.  He  has  never 
seemed  to  care  for  organization,  still  less  to  be  influenced 
by  that  attachment  to  organization  which,  while  sometimes 
leading  to  great  evil,  has  been  the  source  of  inspiration  of 
nearly  everything  that  has  been  accomplished  for  good  in 
this  world. 

Mr.  Blaine  says  of  him,  with  some  exaggeration,  but  with 
some  truth,  that  he  has  not  become  rooted  and  grounded 
anywhere,  has  never  established  a  home,  and  is  not  identi- 
fied with  any  community. 

So  the  influence  of  Mr.  Schurz  has  only  been  to  contribute 
some  powerful  arguments  to  the  cause  which  he  espoused, 
and  never,  certainly  for  a  great  many  years,  that  of  a 
leader.  Mr.  Schurz 's  arguments  for  the  last  thirty  years 
would  have  been  as  effective  if  published  anonymously,  and 
I  dare  say  more  effective  than  they  have  been  when  given 
to  the  world  under  his  name. 

Mr.  Blaine  says  of  him  that  he  has  not  the  power  of 
speaking  extempore;  that  he  requires  careful  and  studious 
preparation,  and  is  never  ready,  off-hand,  to  shoot  on  the 
wing.  I  do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Blaine's  estimate  of  Mr. 
Schurz  in  that  particular.  I  have  heard  him  make  very 
effective  speeches  in  the  Senate,  and  elsewhere,  that  were 
undoubtedly  extemporary.  Mr.  Blaine  says  that  Mr. 
Schurz  is  so  deficient  in  this  respect  that  he  has  been  known 
to  use  manuscript  for  an  after-dinner  response.  But  that 
has  been  done,  not  infrequently,  by  persons  who  have  first- 
rate  capacity  for  extemporary  speaking,  but  who  desire  to 
say  something  to  a  number  of  persons  much  greater  than 
those  who  sit  about  the  tables,  who  are  eager  to  read  what 
they  say.  That  should  be  carefully  matured  both  in  thought 
and  phrase,  and  should  convey  their  meaning  with  more  pre- 
cision than  off-hand  speaking  is  likely  to  attain,  and  be  re- 
ported with  more  accuracy  than  off-hand  speaking  is  likely 
to  set. 

I  have  never  been  intimate  with  Mr.  Schurz.  I  deeply 
lamented  his  action  in  supporting  Mr.  Cleveland,  and  con- 
tributing what  was  in  his  power  to  the  defeat  of  the  Ee- 
publiean  Party  on  two  occasions— a  defeat  which  brought 


so  much  calamity  to  the  Eepublic.  I  have  thought  that  in 
his  dislikes  and  severe  judgment  of  individuals  he  lost 
sight  of  great  principles.  His  independence  of  his  own 
party  led  him  to  support  a  very  much  worse  party  domina- 
tion, and  to  help  to  accomplish  measures  and  establish  prin- 
ciples to  which  he  had  been  all  his  life  utterly  opposed. 
But  the  services  to  which  I  have  alluded  should  not  be  for- 
gotten. They  entitle  him  to  the  highest  respect,  and  should 
far  outweigh  his  faults  and  mistakes. 

Mr.  Schurz  made  one  very  unfortunate  mistake  quite 
early  in  the  course  of  his  administration  of  the  Interior 
Department.  He  had  formed  the  opinion,  I  suppose  with- 
out much  practical  experience  in  such  matters,  that  it  would 
be  a  good  plan  to  get  the  civilized  Indians  of  the  country 
into  the  Indian  Territory.  Accordingly  he  had  issued  an 
order  for  the  removal  of  the  Ponca  Indians,  of  Nebraska, 
to  the  Indian  Territory.  The  Poncas  were  a  small  tribe, 
living  on  excellent  lands,  to  which  they  were  exceedingly 
attached.  They  were  a  peaceful  people.  It  was  their 
boast  that  no  Ponca  had  ever  injured  a  white  man.  Mr. 
Schurz  had  been  informed  that  the  Poncas  were  willing  to 
go.  But  when  they  heard  of  the  scheme,  they  strenuously 
objected.  They  sold  their  ponies  to  enable  an  agent  to  go 
to  Washington  to  make  their  protest  known.  But  Mr. 
Schurz  was  immovable.  The  Nebraska  Senators  waited 
upon  him,  but  their  expostulations  were  received  with  dis- 
dain, as  the  counsel  of  politicians  who  were  not  entitled  to 
much  respect.  The  removal  was  effected.  The  Indian 
Territory  proved  unhealthy  for  them.  A  part  of  the  tribe 
made  their  escape,  took  the  coffins  of  those  who  had  died 
with  them,  and  made  their  way  back  to  the  original  home 
of  their  ancestors. 

The  public  feeling  was  deeply  aroused.  I  happened  to 
be  at  home  in  Worcester  when  a  meeting  was  called  by 
clergymen  and  other  philanthropic  gentlemen.  It  was  ad- 
dressed by  a  young  Indian  woman,  named  Bright  Eyes,  who 
belonged,  I  think,  to  a  tribe  closely  allied  to  the  Poncas.  I 
attended  the  meeting,  but  was  careful  not  to  commit  myself 
to  any  distinct  opinion  without  knowing  more  of  the  facts. 


When  I  got  back  to  Washington,  President  Hayes  called 
on  me  at  my  room.  It  was  the  only  time  I  have  ever  known 
a  President  of  the  United  States  to  call  upon  a  member 
of  either  House  of  Congress  on  public  business,  although 
I  believe  President  Lincoln  sometimes  did  it;  and  it  may 
possibly  have  happened  on  other  occasions.  President 
Hayes  was  very  much  excited.  He  seemed  at  the  time  to 
think  that  a  great  wrong  had  been  done  by  the  Secretary. 
He  brought  his  fist  down  upon  the  table  with  great  empha- 
sis, and  said:  "Mr.  Hoar,  I  will  turn  Mr.  Schurz  out,  if 
you  say  so."  I  said:  "O  no,  Mr.  President,  I  hope  noth- 
ing of  that  kind  will  be  done.  Mr.  Schurz  is  an  able  man. 
He  has  done  his  best.  His  mistake,  if  he  has  made  one,  is 
only  that  he  has  adhered  obstinately  to  a  preconceived 
opinion,  and  has  been  unwilling  to  take  advice  or  receive 
suggestions  after  he  had  determined  on  his  course.  It 
would  be  a  great  calamity  to  have  one  of  your  Cabinet  dis- 
credited by  you."  President  Hayes  took  that  view  of  it. 
Indeed,  I  believe  on  further  and  fuller  inquiry,  he  came  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  was  his  duty  to  sustain  the  Secretary, 
so  far  as  to  keep  in  the  Indian  Territory  the  fragment  of 
the  Ponca  Tribe  who  were  still  there. 

I  took  no  public  part  in  the  matter.  My  colleague,  Mr. 
Dawes,  who  was  a  very  earnest  champion  and  friend  of  the 
Indians,  commented  on  the  course  of  the  Secretary  in  the 
Senate  with  great  severity;  and  he  and  the  Secretary  had 
an  earnest  controversy. 

Mr.  Schurz  was  a  great  favorite  with  our  Independents 
and  Mugwumps,  many  of  whom  had,  like  him,  left  the  Re- 
publican Party  in  1872,  and  some  of  whom  had  not  returned 
to  their  old  allegiance.  Mr.  Schurz  was  invited  to  a  public 
dinner  in  Boston,  at  which  President  Eliot,  Dr.  James  Free- 
man Clarke  and  several  eminent  men  of  their  way  of  think- 
ing, took  part.  They  did  not  discuss  the  merits  of  the  prin- 
cipal question  much,  but  the  burden  of  their  speech  was 
eulogy  of  Mr.  Schurz  as  a  great  and  good  man,  and  severe 
condemnation  of  the  character  of  the  miserable  politicians 
who  were  supposed  to  be  his  critics  and  opponents.  There 
was  a  proposition  for  a  call  for  a  public  meeting  on  the 


other  side  to  condemn  the  Secretary,  and  stand  by  the  In- 
dians. In  this  call  several  very  able  and  influential  men 
joined,  including  Governor  Long.  I  advised  very  strongly 
against  holding  the  meeting.  I  was  quite  sure  that,  on  the 
one  hand,  neither  Mr.  Schurz  nor  the  Administration  was 
likely  to  treat  the  Indians  cruelly  or  unjustly  again;  and 
on  the  other  hand  I  was  equally  sure  of  the  absolute  sin- 
cerity and  humanity  of  the  people  who  had  found  fault 
with  his  action.  A  day  or  two,  however,  after  the  Schurz 
dinner,  a  reporter  of  a  prominent  newspaper  in  Boston 
asked  me  for  an  interview  about  the  matter,  to  which  I 
assented.  He  said :  ' '  Have  you  seen  the  speeches  of  Presi- 
dent Eliot  and  Dr.  Clarke  and  Mr.  Codman  at  the  Schurz 
banquet  I"  I  said,  "Yes."  He  asked  me:  "What  do  you 
think  of  them?"  I  said:  "Well,  it  is  very  natural  that 
these  gentlemen  should  stand  by  Mr.  Schurz,  who  has  been 
their  leader  and  political  associate.  President  Eliot's 
speech  reminds  me  of  Baillie  Nichol  Jarvie  when  he  stood 
up  for  his  kinsman,  Rob  Roy,  in  the  Town  Council  of  Glas- 
gow when  some  of  the  Baillie 's  enemies  had  cast  in  his  teeth 
his  kinship  with  the  famous  outlaw.  'I  tauld  them,'  said 
the  Baillie,  'that  barring  what  Rob  had  dune  again  the 
law,  and  that  some  three  or  four  men  had  come  to  their 
deaths  by  him,  he  was  an  honester  man  than  stude  on  ony 
of  their  shanks.'  "  This  ended  the  incident,  so  far  as  I  was 

To  draw  an  adequate  portraiture  of  Charles  Devens 
would  require  the  noble  touch  of  the  old  masters  of  paint- 
ing or  the  lofty  stroke  of  the  dramatists  of  Queen  Eliza- 
beth's day.  He  filled  many  great  places  in  the  pubhc  ser- 
vice with  so  much  modesty  and  with  a  gracious  charm  of 
manner  and  behavior  which  so  attracted  and  engrossed  our 
admiration  that  we  failed  at  first  to  discern  the  full  strength 
of  the  man.  It  is  not  until  after  his  death,  when  we  sum 
up  what  he  has  done  for  purposes  of  biography  or  of  eu- 
logy, that  we  see  how  important  and  varied  has  been  the 
work  of  his  life. 

Charles  Devens  was  bom  in  Charlestown,  Massachusetts, 


April  4,  1820.  His  family  connections  led  him  to  take  early 
in  life  a  deep  interest  in  the  military  and  naval  history  of 
the  country,  especially  in  that  of  the  War  of  1812;  while 
the  place  of  his  birth  and  the  fact  that  he  was  the  grandson 
of  Richard  Devens  gave  to  him  the  interest  in  the  opening 
of  the  Eevolution  which  belongs  to  every  son  of  Middlesex. 
He  was  a  pupil  at  the  Boston  Latin  School ;  was  graduated 
at  Harvard  in  1838 ;  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1840 ;  prac- 
tised law  in  Northfield  and  afterward  in  Greenfield;  was 
Senator  from  Franklin  County  in  1848  and  1849 ;  was  Brig- 
adier-General of  the  militia;  was  appointed  United  States 
Marshal  by  President  Taylor  in  1849,  holding  that  office 
until  1853;  removed  to  Worcester  in  1854;  formed  a  part- 
nership with  George  F.  Hoar  and  J.  Henry  Hill  in  Decem- 
ber, 1856;  was  City  Solicitor  in  the  years  1856,  1857  and 
1858.  The  news  of  the  surrender  of  Fort  Sumter  was  re- 
ceived in  Worcester  Sunday,  April  14.  Monday  forenoon 
came  the  confirmation  of  the  news  and  President  Lincoln's 
call  for  75,000  volunteers.  General  Devens  was  engaged 
in  the  trial  of  a  cause  before  the  Supreme  Court,  when  the 
news  was  told  him.  He  instantly  requested  another  mem- 
ber of  the  Bar  to  take  his  place  in  the  trial,  went  imme- 
diately up  street,  offered  his  services  to  the  Government, 
was  unanimously  chosen  the  same  day  Major  of  the  Third 
Battalion  of  Massachusetts  Rifles,  commissioned  the  next 
day,  April  16,  departed  for  the  seat  of  war  April  20.  The 
battalion  under  his  command  was  stationed  at  Fort  Mc- 
Henry.  On  the  24th  of  July  following  he  was  appointed 
Colonel  of  the  Fifteenth  Massachusetts  Regiment. 

Gen.  Devens  was  in  command  of  the  Fifteenth  Regiment 
at  the  disastrous  battle  of  Ball's  Bluff,  where  he  was  struck 
by  a  musket  ball,  which  was  intercepted  by  a  metallic  but- 
ton which  saved  his  life.  His  conduct  on  that  day  received 
high  encomium  from  General  McClellan.  He  was  soon  after 
appointed  a  Brigadier-General  of  Volunteers,  and  assigned 
to  a  brigade  in  Couch's  Division  of  the  Fourth  Corps.  His 
division  was  engaged  in  the  battle  in  front  of  Fort  Ma- 
gruder  on  the  5th  of  May,  1862.  On  the  31st  of  the  same 
month  he  was  engaged  in  the  most  critical  portion  of  the 


desperate  fight  at  Fair  Oaks,  where  his  command  was  con- 
spicuous for  valor  and  devotion.  This  was  one  of  the  most 
stubbornly  contested  fields  of  the  war.  Gen.  Devens  was 
severely  wounded  toward  the  close  of  the  day,  but  with  a 
few  other  officers  he  succeeded  in  reforming  the  repeatedly 
broken  lines  and  in  holding  the  field  until  reinforcements 
arrived  and  stayed  the  tide  of  Confederate  triumph.  He 
returned  to  his  command  as  soon  as  his  wound  would  per- 
mit, and  took  part  in  the  battle  of  Fredericksburg  in  Decem- 
ber, 1862.  In  his  official  report  General  Newton  says:  "My 
acknowledgments  are  due  to  all  according  to  their  oppor- 
tunities, but  especially  to  Brigadier-General  Charles  Dev- 
ens, who  commanded  the  advance  and  the  rear  guard,  in  the 
crossing  and  recrossing  of  the  river."  In  the  following 
spring  General  Devens  was  promoted  to  the  command  of  a 
division  of  the  Eleventh  Corps.  He  was  posted  with  his 
division  of  4,000  men  on  the  extreme  right  of  the  flank  of 
Hooker's  army,  which  was  attacked  by  26,000  men  under 
the  great  rebel  leader,  Stonewall  Jackson.  General  Devens 
was  wounded  by  a  musket  ball  in  the  foot  early  in  the  day ; 
but  he  kept  the  field,  making  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to 
hold  his  men  together  and  stay  the  advance  of  the  Confed- 
erates until  his  Corps  was  almost  completely  enveloped  by 
Jackson's  force  and,  in  the  language  of  General  Walker, 
"was  scattered  like  the  stones  and  timbers  of  a  broken  dam." 
He  recovered  from  his  wound  in  time  to  take  part  in  the 
campaign  of  1864.  His  troops  were  engaged  on  the  first 
of  June  in  the  battle  of  Cold  Harbor,  and  carried  the  en- 
emy's entrenched  line  with  severe  loss.  On  the  third  of 
June,  in  an  attack  which  General  Walker  characterizes  as  one 
"which  is  never  spoken  of  without  awe  and  bated  breath 
by  any  one  who  participated  in  it, ' '  General  Devens  was  car- 
ried along  the  line  on  a  stretcher,  being  so  crippled  by  in- 
flammatory rheumatism  that  he  could  neither  mount  his 
horse  nor  stand  in  his  place.  This  was  the  last  action  in 
which  he  took  an  active  part.  On  the  third  of  April,  1865, 
he  led  the  advance  into  Richmond,  where  the  position  of 
Military  Governor  was  assigned  to  him  after  the  surrender. 
He  afterwards  was  second  in  command  to  General  Sickles, 



in  the  SoTitheastern  Department,  and  exercised  practically 
all  the  powers  of  government  for  a  year  or  two.  This  com- 
mand was  of  very  great  importance  to  him  as  a  part  of  his 
legal  training.  Upon  him  practically  devolved  the  duty  of 
deciding  summarily,  but  without  appeal,  all  important  ques- 
tions of  military  law  as  well  as  those  affecting  the  civil 
rights  of  citizens  during  his  administration. 

He  was  offered  a  commission  in  the  regular  army,  which 
he  declined.  He  came  back  to  Worcester  in  1866;  renewed 
his  partnership  with  me  for  a  short  time;  was  appointed 
Justice  of  the  Superior  Court  April,  1867;  was  appointed 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts  in  1873; 
was  offered  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of  War  in  the 
Cabinet  of  President  Hayes  March  5,  1877 ;  a  day  or  two 
later  was  tendered  the  office  of  Attorney- General  by  the 
President,  which  he  accepted  and  held  until  the  expiration 
of  President  Hayes's  Administration.  He  was  offered  the 
office  of  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  First  Circuit  at  the 
death  of  Judge  Shepley,  which  he  very  much  desired  to 
accept.  But  the  President,  although  placing  this  office  at 
his  disposal,  was  exceedingly  unwilling  to  lose  his  service 
in  the  Cabinet ;  and  General  Devens,  with  his  customary  self- 
denial,  yielded  to  the  desire  of  his  chief.  He  was  again 
appointed  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts 
in  1881,  and  held  that  office  until  his  death. 

He  was  elected  a  member  of  the  American  Antiquarian 
Society  October  21,  1878.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Mas- 
sachusetts Historical  Society.  He  received  the  degree  of 
LL.D.  from  Harvard  University  in  the  year  1877.  He  was 
chosen  President  of  the  Harvard  Alumni  Association,  and 
again  elected  President  of  that  Association  in  1886,  in 
order  that  he  might  preside  at  the  great  celebration  of  the 
250th  anniversary  of  the  foundation  of  the  college,  which 
he  did  with  a  dignity  and  grace  which  commanded  the  ad- 
miration of  all  persons  who  were  present  on  that  interest- 
ing occasion.     He  died  January  7,  1891. 

General  Devens  gained  very  soon  after  establishing  him- 
self in  Worcester  the  reputation  of  one  of  the  foremost 
advocates  at  the  bar  of  Massachusetts.     He  was  a  model 


of  the  professional  character,  of  great  courtesy  to  his  op- 
ponent, great  deference  to  the  court,  fidelity  to  his  client, 
giving  to  every  case  all  the  labor  which  could  profitably  be 
spent  upon  it.  The  certainty  of  the  absolute  fidelity,  thor- 
oughness, and  skill  with  which  his  part  of  the  duty  of  an 
important  trial  would  be  performed,  made  it  a  delight  to 
try  cases  as  his  associate.  He  was  especially  powerful 
with  juries  in  cases  involving  the  domestic  relations,  or 
which  had  in  them  anything  of  the  pathos  of  which  the 
court-house  so  often  furnishes  examples.  He  did  not  care 
in  those  days  for  the  preparation  or  argument  of  questions 
of  law,  although  he  possessed  legal  learning  fully  adequate 
to  the  exigencies  of  his  profession,  and  never  neglected  any 

His  fine  powers  continued  to  grow  as  he  grew  older. 
I  think  he  was  unsurpassed  in  this  country  in  the  gen- 
eration to  which  he  belonged  in  native  gifts  of  oratory. 
He  had  a  fine  voice,  of  great  compass  and  power,  a  grace- 
ful and  dignified  presence.  He  was  familiar  with  the  best 
English  literature.  He  had  a  pure  and  admirable  style,  an 
imagination  which  was  quickened  and  excited  under  the 
stimulus  of  extempore  speech,  and  was  himself  moved  and 
stirred  by  the  emotions  which  are  most  likely  to  move  and 
stir  an  American  audience.  Some  of  his  addresses  to 
juries  in  Worcester  are  now  remembered,  under  whose 
spell  jury  and  audience  were  in  tears,  and  where  it  was 
somewhat  difficult  even  for  the  bench  or  the  opposing  coun- 
sel to  resist  the  contagion.  He  never,  however,  undertook 
to  prepare  and  train  himself  for  public  speaking,  as  was 
done  by  Mr.  Choate  or  Mr.  Everett,  or  had  the  constant 
and  varied  practice  under  which  the  fine  powers  of  "Wendell 
Phillips  came  to  such  perfection.  But  his  fame  as  an  ora- 
tor constantly  increased,  so  that  before  his  death  no  other 
man  in  Massachusetts  was  so  much  in  demand,  especially 
on  those  occasions  where  the  veterans  of  the  war  were 
gathered  to  commemorate  its  sacrifices  and  triumphs. 

Among  the  most  successful  examples  of  his  oratoric 
power  is  his  address  at  Bunker  Hill  at  the  Centennial  in 
1875,  where  the  forming  the  procession  and  the  other  exer- 


eises  occupied  the  day  until  nearly  sundown,  and  General 
Devens,  the  orator  of  the  day,  laid  aside  his  carefully  pre- 
pared oration  and  addressed  the  audience  in  a  brief  speech, 
wholly  unpremeditated,  which  was  the  delight  of  every- 
body who  heard  it.* 

At  New  Haven  he  delivered  the  address  before  the  Army 
of  the  Potomac  in  commemoration  of  General  Meade  and 
the  battle  of  Gettysburg,  which  is  a  fine  specimen  of  historic 
narrative  mingled  and  adorned  with  stately  eloquence.  At 
the  banquet  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day  the  gentleman 
who  had  been  expected  to  respond  to  the  toast,  "The  pri- 
vate soldier,"  was  unexpectedly  called  away,  and  General 
Devens  was  asked  at  a  moment's  notice  and  without  prep- 
aration to  take  his  place.  I  heard  President  Grant— no 
mean  judge— who  had  himself  listened  to  so  much  of  the 
best  public  speaking  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  say  that 
General  Devens 's  response  to  this  toast  was  the  finest 
speech  he  ever  heard  in  his  life.  The  eulogy  upon  Grant 
delivered  at  Worcester,  especially  the  wonderful  passage 
where  he  contrasts  the  greeting  which  Napoleon  might  ex- 
pect from  his  soldiers  and  companions  in  arms  at  a  meet- 
ing beyond  the  grave  with  that  which  Grant  might  expect 
from  his  brethren,  is  also  one  of  the  best  specimens  of  elo- 
quence in  modem  times.  Surpassing  even  these  are  the 
few  sentences  he  addressed  to  his  regiment  after  the  battle 
of  Ball's  Bluff. 

General  Devens  had  a  modest  estimate  of  his  own  best 
powers.  While  he  was  an  admirable  judge,  bringing  to  the 
court  the  weight  of  his  great  experience,  his  admirable 
sense,  his  stainless  integrity,  his  perfect  impartiality,  his 
great  discernment,  his  abundant  learning,  it  has  always 
seemed  to  me  that  he  erred  after  the  war  in  not  preferring 

*  "  The  oration  by  Judge  Devens  was  magnificent.  He  spoke  wholly  with- 
out notes  and  his  effort  was  largely  extemporaneous.  He  began  by  saying 
that  the  lateness  of  the  hour  ('twas  nearly  six  o'clock)  would  prevent  his 
following  the  train  of  any  previously  prepared  effort  and  he  would  briefly 
review  the  history  of  the  battle  and  its  results  upon  the  world's  history.  He 
spoke  for  nearly  an  hour  and  a  quarter,  holding  his  fine  audience  in  rapt 
attention  by  his  eloquence,  the  elegance  of  his  diction  and  his  superb  enuncia- 
tion. It  was,  indeed,  a  wonderful  effort,  and  will  compare  favorably  with 
Webster's  great  orations  in  '25  and  '43." — From  the  diary  of  Henry  H.  Edes. 


political  life  to  Ms  place  upon  the  bench.  He  could  easily 
have  been  Governor  or  Senator,  in  which  places  the  affec- 
tion of  the  people  of  Massachusetts  would  have  kept  him 
for  a  period  limited  only  by  his  own  desire,  and  might  well 
have  been  expected  to  pass  from  the  Cabinet  to  an  even 
higher  place  in  the  service  of  his  country.  But  he  disliked 
political  strife,  and  preferred  those  places  of  service  which 
did  not  compel  him  to  encounter  bitter  antagonisms. 

He  filled  the  place  of  Attorney-General  with  a  dignity  and 
an  ability  which  has  been  rarely  if  ever  surpassed  by  any 
of  the  illustrious  men  who  have  filled  that  great  office.  The 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  long  after  he  had  left  Wash- 
ington were  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  admirable  manner 
in  which  he  discharged  his  duties.  I  once  at  a  dinner  heard 
Mr.  Justice  Bradley,  who  was  without  a  superior,  if  not 
without  a  peer  in  his  day,  among  jurists  on  either  side  of  the 
Atlantic,  speak  enthusiastically  of  his  recollection  of  General 
Devens  in  the  office  of  Attorney-General.  Judge  Bradley 
kindly  acceded  to  my  request  to  put  in  writing  what  he  had 
said.     His  letter  is  here  inserted: 

Washington,  January  20th,  1891. 
Hon.  Geo.  F.  Hoae. 

My  Dear  Sir:  You  ask  for  my  estimate  of  the  services 
and  character  of  General  Devens  as  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States.  In  general  terms  I  unhesitatingly  answer, 
that  he  left  upon  my  mind  the  impression  of  a  sterling, 
noble,  generous  character,  loyal  to  duty,  strong,  able,  and 
courteous  in  the  fulfillment  of  it,  with  such  accumulation  of 
legal  acquirement  and  general  culture  as  to  render  his  coun- 
sels highly  valuable  in.  the  Cabinet,  and  his  public  efforts 
exceedingly  graceful  and  effective.  His  professional  ex- 
hibitions in  the  Supreme  Court  during  the  four  years  that 
he  represented  the  Government,  were  characterized  by 
sound  learning,  chastely  and  accurately  expressed,  great 
breadth  of  view,  the  seizing  of  strong  points  and  disregard 
of  minute  ones,  marked  deference  for  the  court  and  cour- 
tesy to  his  opponents.  He  was  a  model  to  the  younger 
members  of  the  bar  of  a  courtly  and  polished  advocate. 


He  appeared  in  the  court  only  in  cases  of  special  impor- 
tance ;  but  of  these  there  was  quite  a  large  number  during 
his  term.  As  examples,  I  may  refer  to  the  cases  of  Young 
V.  United  States  (97  U.  S.  39),  which  involved  the  rights 
of  neutrals  in  our  Civil  War,  and  particularly  the  alleged 
right  of  a  British  subject,  who  had  been  engaged  in  running 
the  blockade,  to  demand  compensation  for  a  large  quantity 
of  cotton  purchased  in  the  Confederacy  and  seized  by  the 
military  forces  of  the  United  States ;— Eeynolds  v.  United 
States  (98  U.  S.  145),  which  declared  the  futility  of  the 
plea,  in  cases  of  bigamy  among  the  Mormons,  of  religious 
belief,  claimed  under  the  first  amendment  of  the  Constitu- 
tion; and  established  the  principle  that  pretended  religious 
belief  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  justification  of  overt  acts 
made  criminal  by  the  law  of  the  land;— The  Sinking  Fund 
Cases  (99  U.  S.  700),  which  involved  the  validity  of  the 
act  of  Congress  known  as  the  Thurman  Act,  requiring  the 
Pacific  Railroad  Companies  to  make  annual  payments  for  a 
sinking  fund  to  meet  the  bonds  loaned  to  them  by  the  Gov- 
ernment;—Tennessee  V.  Davis  (100  U.  S.  257),  as  to  the 
right  of  a  United  States  officer  to  be  tried  in  the  Federal 
courts  for  killing  a  person  in  self-defence  whilst  in  the  dis- 
charge of  his  official  duties;— The  Civil  Eights  case  of 
Strander  v.  W.  Virginia  and  others  (100  U.  S.  303-422), 
in  which  were  settled  the  rights  of  all  classes  of  citizens, 
irrespective  of  color,  to  suifrage  and  to  representation  in 
the  jury  box,  and  the  right  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  interpose  its  power  for  their  protection;— 
Neal  V.  Delaware  (103  U.  S.  370),  by  which  it  was  de- 
cided that  the  right  of  suffrage  and  (in  that  case)  the  con- 
sequent right  of  jury  service  of  people  of  African  descent, 
were  secured  by  the  15th  Amendment  to  the  Constitution, 
notwithstanding  unrepealed  state  laws  or  constitutions  to 
the  contrary. 

In  all  these  cases  and  many  others  the  arguments  of  the 
Attorney-General  were  presented  with  distinguished  ability 
and  dignity,  and  with  his  habitual  courtesy  and  amenity  of 
manner ;  whilst  his  broad  and  comprehensive  views  greatly 
aided  the  court  in  arriving  at  just  conclusions.     In  all  of 


them  lie  was  successful ;  and  it  may  be  said  that  he  rarely 
assumed  a  position  on  behalf  of  the  Government,  in  any 
important  case,  in  which  he  was  not  sustained  by  the  judg- 
ment of  the  court.  His  advocacy  was  conscientious  and 
judicial  rather  than  experimental— as  is  eminently  fitting  in 
the  official  representative  of  the  Government.  It  best  sub- 
serves the  ends  of  justice,  the  suppression  of  useless  litiga- 
tion, and  the  prompt  administration  of  the  law. 

I  can  only  add  that  the  members  of  the  Supreme  Court 
parted  with  Attorney-General  Devens  with  regret.  Of 
him,  as  of  so  many  other  eminent  lawyers,  the  reflection  is 
just,  that  the  highest  efforts  of  advocacy  have  no  adequate 
memorial.  Written  compositions  remain;  but  the  noblest 
displays  of  human  genius  at  the  bar— often,  perhaps,  the 
successful  assaults  of  Freedom  against  the  fortresses  of 
Despotism — are  lost  to  history  and  memory  for  want  of 
needful  recordation.  Vixere  fortes  ante  Agamemnona;  or, 
as  Tacitus  says  of  the  eloquent  Haterius,  "Whilst  the  plod- 
ding industry  of  scribblers  goes  down  to  posterity,  the  sweet 
voice  and  fluent  eloquence  of  Haterius  died  with  himself. ' ' 
Very  truly  yours. 

Joseph  P.  Bradley. 

He  was  an  admirable  historical  investigator  and  narrator. 
He  carefully  investigated  the  facts.  He  told  the  story  of 
the  heroic  days  of  the  Eevolution  and  of  the  heroic  days  of 
the  War  for  the  Union  with  a  graphic  power  which  will  give 
his  addresses  on  such  subjects  a  permanent  place  in  our 
best  historical  literature. 

But  it  is  as  a  soldier  that  his  countrymen  will  remember 
him,  and  it  is  as  a  soldier  that  he  would  wish  to  be  remem- 
bered. Whatever  may  be  said  by  the  philosopher,  the 
moralist,  or  the  preacher,  the  instincts  of  the  greater  por- 
tion of  mankind  will  lead  them  to  award  the  highest  meed 
of  admiration  to  the  military  character.  Even  when  the 
most  selfish  of  human  passions,  the  love  of  power  or  the 
love  of  fame,  is  the  stimulant  of  the  soldier's  career,  he 
must  at  least  be  ready  for  the  supreme  sacrifice— the  will- 
ingness to  give  his  hfe,  if  need  be,  for  the  object  he  is  pur- 


suing.  But  when  his  end  is  purely  unselfish,  when  the  love 
of  country  or  the  desire  to  save  her  life  by  giving  his  own 
has  entire  mastery  of  the  soul,  all  mankind  are  agreed  to 
award  to  the  good  soldier  a  glory  which  it  bestows  nowhere 

There  was  nothing  lacking  in  General  Devens  to  the 
complete  soldierly  character.  He  had  a  passionate  love  of 
his  country;  he  was  absolutely  fearless;  he  never  flinched 
before  danger,  sickness,  suffering  or  death.  He  was 
prompt,  resolute  and  cool  in  the  face  of  danger.  He  had 
a  warm  and  affectionate  heart.  He  loved  his  comrades, 
especially  the  youth  who  were  under  his  command.  He 
had  that  gentle  and  placable  nature  which  so  often  accom- 
panies great  courage.  He  was  incapable  of  a  permanent 
anger.  He  was  still  less  capable  of  revenge  or  of  willing- 
ness to  inflict  injury  or  pain. 

As  Clarendon  says  of  Falkland :  ' '  He  had  a  full  appetite 
of  fame  by  just  and  generous  actions,  so  he  had  an  equal 
contempt  for  it  by  base  and  servile  expedients. ' '  He  never 
for  an  instant  tolerated  that  most  pernicious  and  pestilent 
heresy,  that  so  long  as  each  side  believed  itself  to  be  in  the 
right  there  was  no  difference  between  the  just  and  the  un- 
just cause.  He  knew  that  he  was  contending  for  the  life  of 
his  country,  for  the  fate  of  human  liberty  on  this  continent. 
No  other  cause  would  have  led  him  to  draw  his  sword ;  and 
he  cared  for  no  other  earthly  reward  for  his  service. 

Oh  just  and  faithful  knight  of   God, 
Ride  on,  the  prize  is  near. 



In  general  the  determination  of  the  title  to  the  Presi- 
dency was  acquiesced  in  in  a  manner  highly  creditable  to 
the  people.  The  Democratic  Party  submitted  to  their  dis- 
appointment in  a  manner  which  was  on  the  whole  exceed- 
ingly praiseworthy.  This  was  due  very  largely  to  the  in- 
fluence of  Mr.  Lamar,  of  Mississippi,  and  I  suppose  to  that 
of  Mr.  Bayard,  of  Delaware.  But  there  were  not  wanting 
persons  who  were  willing  to  revive  the  question  for  political 
advantage,  whatever  the  effect  upon  the  public  tranquillity. 
On  May  13,  1878,  when  the  President  had  been  for  more 
than  a  year  in  the  quiet  possession  of  his  office,  Mr.  Clark- 
son  N.  Potter,  of  New  York,  introduced  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a 
Committee  to  investigate  alleged  frauds  in  the  States  of 
Louisiana  and  Florida,  in  the  recent  Presidential  election. 
This  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  House,  in  which  every 
possible  parliamentary  method  for  its  defeat  was  resorted 
to  by  the  Republican  minority.  The  Republicans  were  ex- 
ceedingly alarmed,  and  the  proceeding  seemed  likely  to 
create  a  financial  panic  which  would  disturb  and  injure  the 
business  of  the  country. 

Shortly  after  Mr.  Potter's  committee  was  appointed,  it 
was  expected  that  a  report  would  be  made  denying  the 
validity  of  President  Hayes's  title,  and  that  the  Democratic 
House  of  Representatives  would  be  advised  to  refuse  to 
acknowledge  him  as  President.  This  would  have  thrown 
the  Government  into  great  confusion  and  would  have  made 
a  square  issue.  A  caucus  of  Republican  Senators  was  held, 
and  the  following  gentlemen  were  appointed  a  Committee, 
with  directions  to  report  what  action,  if  any,  ought  to  be 



taken  by  the  Senate  in  the  matter :  Mr.  Edmunds,  Mr.  Howe, 
Mr.  Conkling,  Mr.  Allison,  Mr.  Sargent,  Mr.  Ingalls,  Mr. 
Oglesby,  Mr.  Jones  (of  Nevada),  Mr.  Christiancy,  Mr. 
Blaine,  Mr.  Hoar. 

I  was  requested  by  my  associates  to  prepare  an  address 
to  the  people,  to  be  signed  by  the  Republican  Senators,  ar- 
raigning the  Democratic  leaders  for  their  unjustifiable  and 
revolutionary  course,  and  pointing  out  the  public  danger. 
The  Committee  had  a  second  meeting,  when  I  read  to  them 
the  following  address,  which  I  had  prepared  and  which  I 
still  have  in  my  possession : 

"Our  sense  of  the  presence  of  a  great  public  danger 
makes  it  our  duty  to  address  you.  We  are  satisfied  that 
the  leaders  of  the  Democratic  Party  meditate  an  attack  on 
the  President's  possession  of  his  office,  the  results  of  which 
must  be  the  destruction  of  the  reviving  industries  of  the 
country,  civil  confusion  and  war.  There  has  been  differ- 
ence of  opinion  whether  the  count  of  the  electoral  vote, 
which  under  the  Constitution  determines  the  President's 
title  must  be  made  by  the  two  House  of  Congress,  or  by  the 
President  of  the  Senate  in  their  presence.  In  the  count  of 
electoral  votes,  which  resulted  in  the  declaration  of  the  elec- 
tion of  President  Hayes,  both  methods  concurred,  the  action 
of  the  two  Houses  being  in  accordance  with  a  law  regulating 
their  proceedings,  enacted  in  the  last  Congress  to  meet  the 
case  by  large  majorities  of  both  branches.  The  title  of 
President  Hayes,  therefore,  not  only  rests  upon  the  strong- 
est possible  Constitutional  sanction,  but  the  honor  of  both 
the  great  parties  in  the  country  is  solemnly  pledged  to  main- 
tain it. 

"Yet  the  Democratic  majority  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives has  set  on  foot  a  proceeding,  which  they  call  an  in- 
vestigation, intended,  if  they  can  get  control  of  the  next 
Congress,  to  pave  the  way  for  the  expulsion  of  President 
Hayes,  and  the  seating  of  Mr.  Tilden  in  his  place.  It  will 
be  the  President's  duty  to  maintain  himself  in  office,  and 
the  duty  of  all  good  citizens  to  stand  by  him.  The  result  is 
Civil  War. 


"We  know  that  many  Democratic  Senators  and  Repre- 
sentatives disclaim  in  private  the  purpose  we  attribute  to 
their  leaders,  and  denounce  the  wickedness  and  folly  of  an 
attempt  to  set  aside  the  accepted  result  of  the  last  election 
of  President.  You  doubtless  know  that  many  of  your 
Democratic  neighbors  give  you  the  same  assurance.  Be  not 
lulled  by  these  assurances  into  a  false  security.  He  is  little 
familiar  with  the  history  of  that  party  who  does  not  know 
how  its  members  follow  in  compact  columns  where  its 
leaders  point  the  way.  Like  assurances  preceded  the  repeal 
of  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Like  assurances  on  the  part 
of  many  Democrats  at  the  South  preceded  the  late  rebellion. 
Such  convictions  on  the  part  of  the  Democrats,  however 
honest  or  earnest,  of  the  danger  and  dishonor  of  the  pro- 
ceedings just  inaugurated  found  expression  in  but  a  single 
dissenting  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

' '  They  say  that  they  believe  that  the  result  in  two  of  the 
States  was  accomplished  by  fraud.  We  believe,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  those  States,  and  others  whose  votes  were 
counted  for  Tilden,  were  strongly  Republican,  and  would 
have  been  counted  for  Hayes  without  a  question,  but  for 
violence  and  crime.  The  Constitution  provides  the  time, 
place  and  manner  in  which  these  contentions  must  be  set- 
tled. They  have  been  so  settled  as  between  Hayes  and  Til- 
den, and  it  is  only  by  usurpation  and  revolution  that  a  sub- 
sequent Congress  can  undertake  to  reopen  them.  You 
know  how  easily  party  majorities  persuade  themselves,  or 
affect  to  persuade  themselves,  of  the  existence  of  facts, 
which  it  is  for  their  party  interest  to  establish. 

"At  the  end  of  his  four  years  the  President  lays  down  his 
office,  and  his  successor  is  chosen.  The  people  have  in  their 
hands  this  frequent,  easy  and  peaceful  remedy  for  all  evils 
of  administration.  The  usurpation  by  Congress  of  the 
power  to  displace  a  President  whenever  they  choose  to 
determine  that  the  original  declaration  of  the  result  of  an 
election  was  wrong,  on  whatever  pretence  it  is  defended,  is 
a  total  overthrow  of  the  Constitution. 

"If  you  would  ward  off  this  blow  at  the  national  life,  you 


have  one  perfect  means  of  defence,  the  election  of  a  Eepub- 
lican  majority  in  the  next  House  of  Eepresentatives. " 

When  they  had  all  agreed  to  it,  Mr.  Conkling,  a  member 
of  the  Committee  who  had  not  attended  the  previous  meet- 
ing, came  in  late.  The  document  was  read  to  him.  He  op- 
posed the  whole  plan  with  great  earnestness  and  indigna- 
tion, spoke  with  great  severity  of  President  Hayes,  and  said 
that  he  hoped  it  would  be  the  last  time  that  any  man  in  the 
United  States  would  attempt  to  steal  the  Presidency.  Mr. 
Conkling 's  influence  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  country  was 
then  quite  powerful.  It  was  thought  best  not  to  issue  the 
appeal  unless  it  were  to  have  the  unanimous  support  of  the 
Eepublicans.  But  the  discovery  of  some  cipher  dispatches 
implicating  some  well-known  persons,  including  one  mem- 
ber of  Mr.  Tilden's  household,  in  an  attempt  to  bribe  the 
canvassing  boards  in  the  South  and  to  purchase  some  Re- 
publican electors  in  the  South  and  one  in  Oregon,  tended  to 
make  the  leading  members  of  that  party  sick  of  the  whole 
matter.  President  Hayes  served  out  his  term  peacefully 
and  handed  over  the  executive  power,  not  only  to  a  Repub- 
lican successor,  but  to  a  member  of  the  majority  of  the 
Electoral  Commission.  So  it  seems  clear  that  the  bulk  of 
the  American  people  had  little  sympathy  with  the  com- 


THE  SENATE  IN  1877 

When  I  came  to  the  Senate  that  body  was  at  the  very- 
height  of  its  Constitutional  power.  It  was,  I  think,  a  more 
powerful  body  than  ever  before  or  since.  There  were  no 
men  in  it,  I  suppose,  who  were  equal  in  reputation  or  per- 
sonal authority  to  either  of  the  great  triumvirate— Web- 
ster, Clay  and  Calhoun.  If  we  may  trust  the  traditions 
that  have  come  down  from  the  time  of  the  Administrations 
of  Washington  and  Adams,  when  the  Senate  sat  with  closed 
doors,  none  of  them  ever  acquired  the  authority  wielded  by 
the  profound  sagacity  of  Ellsworth. 

But  the  National  authority  itself,  of  which  the  Senate 
was  a  part,  was  restricted  by  the  narrow  construction  which 
prevailed  before  the  Civil  War.  During  the  Civil  War 
everything  was  bowed  and  bent  before  the  military  power. 
After  the  war  ended  the  Senate  was  engaged  in  a  con- 
troversy with  Andrew  Johnson,  during  which  there  could 
be  no  healthy  action  either  of  the  executive  or  the  legisla- 
tive branch  of  the  Government.  It  was  like  a  pair  of  shears, 
from  which  the  rivet  was  gone. 

With  the  coming  in  of  Grant  harmonious  relations  were 
established  between  the  two  departments.  But  the  Senators 
were  unwilling  to  part  with  the  prerogatives,  which  they  had 
helped  each  other  to  assert,  and  which  had  been  wrenched 
from  the  feeble  hand  of  Johnson.  What  was  called  Sena- 
torial Courtesy  required  every  Senator  belonging  to  the 
party  in  the  majority  to  support  every  other  in  demanding 
the  right  to  dictate  and  control  the  executive  and  judicial 
appointments  from  their  respective  States.  So  every  Sen- 
ator had  established  a  following,  like  that  of  the  Highland 
chieftain— "Vich  Ian  Vohr  with  his  tail  on"— devoted,  of 



course,  to  the  party,  but  devoted  more  completely  and  imme- 
diately to  his  political  fortunes. 

President  Grant  in  the  beginning  undertook  to  break 
down  this  arrogant  claim.  He  recommended  the  repeal  of 
the  Civil  Tenure  Act,  the  establishment  of  a  system  of  com- 
petitive examinations  for  appointments  in  the  civil  service 
and,  under  the  advice  of  Attorney-G-eneral  Hoar,  made  his 
nominations  to  the  new  Circuit  Court  without  regard  to 
Senatorial  dictation.  But  he  very  soon  abandoned  this  pur- 
pose, and  formed  a  close  friendship  and  alliance  with  the 
most  earnest  opponents  of  the  reform. 

While,  in  my  opinion,  this  claim  of  the  Senators  was  un- 
tenable and  of  injurious  public  consequences,  it  tended  to 
maintain  and  increase  the  authority  of  the  Senate.  The 
most  eminent  Senators— Sumner,  Conkling,  Sherman,  Ed- 
munds, Carpenter,  Frelinghuysen,  Simon  Cameron,  An- 
thony, Logan — would  have  received  as  a  personal  affront 
a  private  message  from  the  White  House  expressing  a 
desire  that  they  should  adopt  any  course  in  the  discharge  of 
their  legislative  duties  that  they  did  not  approve.  If  they 
visited  the  White  House,  it  was  to  give,  not  to  receive  advice. 
Any  little  company  or  coterie  who  had  undertaken  to  ar- 
range public  policies  with  the  President  and  to  report  to 
their  associates  what  the  President  thought  would  have 
rapidly  come  to  grief.  These  leaders  were  men,  almost  all 
of  them,  of  great  faults.  They  were  not  free  from  ambition. 
Some  of  them  were  quite  capable  of  revenge,  and  of  using 
the  powers  of  the  Government  to  further  their  ambition  or 
revenge.  But  they  maintained  the  dignity  and  the  authority 
of  the  Senatorial  office.  Each  of  these  stars  kept  his  own 
orbit  and  shone  in  his  sphere,  within  which  he  tolerated  no 
intrusion  from  the  President  or  from  anybody  else. 

The  reform  of  the  civil  service  has  doubtless  shorn  the 
office  of  Senator  of  a  good  deal  of  its  power.  I  think  Presi- 
dent McKinley,  doubtless  with  the  best  and  purest  intentions, 
did  still  more  to  curtail  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  of- 
fice. I  dare  say  the  increase  in  the  number  of  Senators  has 
had  also  much  to  do  with  it.  President  McKinley,  with  his 
great  wisdom  and  tact  and  his  delightful  individual  quality. 

THE    SENATE    IN   1877  47 

succeeded  in  establishing  an  influence  over  the  members  of 
the  Senate  not,  I  think,  equalled  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Government,  except  possibly  by  Andrew  Jackson.  And 
while  the  strong  will  of  Jackson  subjugated  Senators,  in 
many  cases,  as  it  did  other  men,  yet  it  roused  an  antag- 
onism not  only  in  his  political  opponents,  but  in  many  im- 
portant men  of  his  own  party,  which  would  have  overthrown 
him  but  for  his  very  great  popularity  with  the  common 
people.  President  McKinley  also  made  one  serious  mis- 
take, of  which  indeed  he  did  not  set  the  example.  Yet  he 
made  what  was  before  but  an  individual  and  extraordinary 
instance,  a  practice.  If  that  practice  continue,  it  will  go  far, 
in  my  judgment,  to  destroy  the  independence  and  dignity  of 
the  Senate.  That  is,  the  appointment  of  members  of  the 
Senate  to  distinguished  and  lucrative  places  in  the  public 
service,  in  which  they  are  to  receive  and  obey  the  command 
of  the  Executive,  and  then  come  back  to  their  seats  to  carry 
out  as  Senators  a  policy  which  they  have  adopted  at  the 
command  of  another  power,  without  any  opportunity  of  con- 
sultation with  their  associates,  or  of  learning  their  asso- 
ciates' opinions. 

The  Constitution  provides.  Article  I.,  Sec.  6, 

' '  No  Senator  or  Representative  shall,  during  the  time  for 
which  he  was  elected,  be  appointed  to  any  civil  ofl&ce  under 
the  authority  of  the  United  States,  which  shall  have  been 
created,  or  the  emoluments  whereof  shall  have  been  in- 
creased, during  such  time ;  and  no  person  holding  any  office 
under  the  United  States  shall  be  a  member  of  either  House 
during  his  continuance  in  office." 

It  is,  I  suppose,  beyond  dispute  that  the  intention  of 
that  provision  was  to  protect  the  members  of  the  Legislative 
branch  of  the  Government  from  Executive  influence.  The 
legislator  was  not  to  be  induced  to  create  a  civil  office,  or  to 
increase  its  emoluments,  at  the  request  of  the  Executive, 
in  the  hope  that  he  might  be  appointed.  He  was  to  preserve 
his  independence  of  Executive  influence,  and  to  approach 
all  questions  in  which  he  might  have  to  deal  with  matters 


which  concerned  the  Executive  power,  or  Executive  action, 
absolutely  free  from  any  bias. 

This  provision  comes,  with  some  modification,  from  the 
English  Constitution.  The  fear  of  Executive  influence  was 
in  that  day  constantly  before  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
and  the  people  who  adopted  it.  Eoger  Sherman,  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  John  Adams,  says  that  he  "esteems  the 
provision  made  for  appointment  to  office  to  be  a  matter  of 
very  great  importance,  on  which  the  liberties  and  safety  of 
the  people  depend  nearly  as  much  as  on  legislation." 

' '  It  was, ' '  he  says,  ' '  a  saying  of  one  of  the  Kings  of  Eng- 
land that  while  the  King  could  appoint  the  Bishops  and 
Judges  he  might  have  what  religion  and  laws  he  pleased. ' ' 

Mr.  Sherman  adds:  "By  such  appointments,  without 
control,  a  power  might  be  gradually  established  that  would 
be  more  formidable  than  a  standing  army." 

I  think  that  sooner  or  later  some  emphatic  action  will  be 
taken,  probably  in  the  form  of  a  declaratory  resolution, 
which  will  put  an  end  to  this  abuse.  But  there  will  always 
be  found  men  in  either  branch  who  desire  such  honorable 
employment.  They  will  be  men  of  great  influence.  There 
are  also  frequently  men  of  personal  worth  who  always  sup- 
port whatever  the  President  of  the  United  States  thinks  fit 
to  do,  and  trot  or  amble  along  in  the  procession  which 
follows  the  Executive  chariot.  So,  if  any  President  shall 
hereafter  repeat  this  attempt  it  will  require  a  good  deal  of 
firmness  to  defeat  it. 

Senator  Morgan  of  Alabama  made  a  very  bright  com- 
parison of  the  relation  to  the  White  House  of  some  very 
worthy  Senators  to  that  of  the  bird  in  a  cuckoo  clock.  He 
said  that  whenever  the  clock  at  the  White  House  strikes 
the  bird  issues  out  of  the  door  in  the  Senate  Chamber,  and 
says:  "Cuckoo,  Cuckoo,"  and  that  when  the  striking  is 
over,  he  goes  in  again  and  shuts  the  door  after  him.  He  was 
speaking  of  Democratic  Senators.  But  I  am  afraid  my  ex- 
cellent Republican  brethren  can  furnish  quite  as  many  in- 
stances of  this  servility  as  their  opponents. 

The  President  has  repeatedly,  within  the  last  six  years, 
appointed  members  of  the  Senate  and  House  to  be  Commis- 

THE    SENATE    IN   1877  49 

sioners  to  negotiate  and  conclude,  as  far  as  can  be  done  by 
diplomatic  agencies,  treaties  and  other  arrangements  with 
foreign  Governments,  of  the  gravest  importance.  These 
include  the  arrangement  of  a  standard  of  value  by  Interna- 
tional agreement ;  making  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  at  the  end  of 
the  War  with  Spain;  arranging  a  Treaty  of  Commerce 
between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain;  making  a 
Treaty  to  settle  the  Behring  Sea  controversy ;  and  now  more 
lately  to  establish  the  boundary  line  between  Canada  and 

President  McKinley  also  appointed  a  Commission,  in- 
cluding Senators  and  Eepresentatives,  to  visit  Hawaii,  and 
to  report  upon  the  needs  of  legislation  there.  This  last  was 
as  clearly  the  proper  duty  and  function  of  a  committee,  to  be 
appointed  by  one  or  the  other  branch  of  Congress,  as  any- 
thing that  could  be  conceived. 

The  question  has  been  raised  whether  these  functions  were 
offices,  within  the  Constitutional  sense.  It  was  stoutly  con- 
tended, and  I  believe  held  by  nearly  all  the  Eepublican  Sen- 
ators at  the  time  when  President  Cleveland  appointed  Mr. 
Blount  to  visit  Hawaii,  and  required  that  the  diplomatic 
action  of  our  Minister  there  should  be  subject  to  his  ap- 
proval, that  he  was  appointing  a  diplomatic  officer,  and 
that  he  had  no  right  so  to  commission  Mr.  Blount,  without 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  President  McKinley 
seemed  to  accept  this  view  when  he  sent  in  for  confirmation 
the  names  of  two  Senators,  who  were  appointed  on  the  Com- 
mission to  visit  Hawaii.  The  Senate  declined  to  take  action 
upon  these  nominations.  The  very  pertinent  question  was 
put  by  an  eminent  member  of  the  Senate :  If  these  gentle- 
men are  to  be  officers,  how  can  the  President  appoint  them 
under  the  Constitution,  the  office  being  created  during  their 
term  ?  Or,  how  can  they  hold  office  and  still  keep  their  seats 
in  this  body?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  not  officers, 
under  what  Constitutional  provision  does  the  President  ask 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  their  appointment? 

But  the  suggestion  that  these  gentlemen  are  not  officers, 
seems  to  me  the  merest  cavil.  They  exercise  an  authority, 
and  are  clothed  with  a  dignity  equal  to  that  of  the  highest 


and  most  important  diplomatic  officer,  and  far  superior  to 
that  of  most  of  tlie  civil  officers  of  the  country.  To  say- 
that  the  President  cannot  appoint  a  Senator  or  Representa- 
tive postmaster  in  a  country  village,  where  the  perquisites 
do  not  amount  to  a  hundred  dollars  a  year,  where  perhaps 
no  other  person  can  be  found  to  do  the  duties,  because  that 
would  put  an  improper  temptation  in  the  way  of  the  legis- 
lator to  induce  him  to  become  the  tool  of  the  Executive  will, 
and  then  permit  the  President  to  send  him  abroad ;  to  enable 
him  to  maintain  the  distinction  and  enjoy  the  pleasure  of  a 
season  at  a  foreign  capital  as  the  representative  of  the 
United  States,  with  all  his  expenses  paid,  and  a  large 
compensation  added,  determined  solely  by  the  Executive 
will ;  and  to  hold  that  the  f ramers  of  the  Constitution  would 
for  a  moment  have  tolerated  that,  seems  to  me  utterly  pre- 

Beside,  it  places  the  Senator  so  selected  in  a  position 
where  he  cannot  properly  perform  his  duties  as  a  Senator. 
He  is  bound  to  meet  his  associates  at  the  great  National 
Council  Board  as  an  equal,  to  hear  their  reasons  as  well  as 
to  impart  his  own.  How  can  he  discharge  that  duty,  if  he 
had  already  not  only  formed  an  opinion,  but  acted  upon  the 
matter  under  the  control  and  direction  of  another  depart- 
ment of  the  Government  ? 

The  Senate  was  exceedingly  sensitive  about  this  question 
when  it  first  arose.  But  the  gentlemen  selected  by  the  Ex- 
ecutive for  these  services  were,  in  general,  specially  com- 
petent for  the  duty.  Their  associates  were  naturally  quite 
unwilling  to  take  any  action  that  should  seem  to  involve  a 
reproof  to  them.  The  matter  did  not,  however,  pass  with- 
out remonstrance.  It  was  hoped  that  it  would  not  be  re- 
peated. At  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  the  Silver  Com- 
mission, I  myself  called  attention  to  the  matter  in  the 
Senate.  Later,  as  I  have  said,  the  Senate  declined  to  take 
action  on  the  Commission  appointed  to  visit  Hawaii.  But 
there  was  considerable  discussion.  Several  bills  and  reso- 
lutions were  introduced,  which  were  intended  to  prohibit 
such  appointments  in  the  future.  The  matter  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.     It  turned  out  that  three 

THE    SENATE   IN   1877  51 

members  of  that  Committee  had  been  appointed  by  Presi- 
dent McKinley  on  the  Canadian  Commission.  One  of  them, 
however,  said  he  had  accepted  the  appointment  without  due 
reflection,  and  he  was  quite  satisfied  that  the  practice  was 
wrong.  The  Committee  disliked  exceedingly  to  make  a 
report  which  might  be  construed  as  a  censure  of  their  asso- 
ciates. So  I  was  instructed  to  call  upon  President  McKin- 
ley and  say  to  him  in  behalf  of  the  Committee,  that  they 
hoped  the  practice  would  not  be  continued.  That  task  I 
discharged.  President  McKinley  said  he  was  aware  of  the 
objections ;  that  he  had  come  to  feel  the  evil  very  strongly ; 
and  while  he  did  not  say  in  terms  that  he  would  not  make 
another  appointment  of  the  kind,  he  conveyed  to  me,  as 
I  am  very  sure  he  intended  to  do,  the  assurance  that  it 
would  not  occur  again.  He  said,  however,  that  it  was  not 
in  general  understood  how  few  people  there  were  in  this 
country,  out  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives, 
qualified  for  important  diplomatic  service  of  that  kind,  espe- 
cially when  we  had  to  contend  with  the  trained  diplomatists 
of  Europe,  who  had  studied  such  subjects  all  their  lives. 
He  told  me  some  of  the  difficulties  he  had  encountered  in 
making  selections  of  Ministers  abroad,  where  important 
matters  were  to  be  dealt  with,  our  diplomatic  representatives 
having,  as  a  rule,  to  be  taken  from  entirely  different  pur- 
suits and  employments. 

That  Congress  in  the  past  has  thought  it  best  to  extend 
rather  than  restrict  this  prohibition  is  shown  by  the  statute 
which  forbids,  under  a  severe  penalty,  members  of  either 
House  of  Congress  from  representing  the  Government  as 



As  I  just  said,  there  was  no  man  in  the  Senate  when  I 
entered  it  who  equalled  in  renown  either  "Webster,  Clay  or 
Calhoun,  or  wielded  in  the  Senate  an  influence  like  that  of 
Oliver  Ellsworth.  With  at  most  but  two  or  three  excep- 
tions, no  one  of  them  would  be  counted  among  the  great 
men  of  the  century  in  which  he  lived,  or  will  be  remembered 
long  after  his  death.  But  the  average  excellence  was  high. 
It  was  a  company  of  very  wise  men,  fairly  representing  the 
best  sentiment  and  aspiration  of  the  Eepublic.  The  angers 
and  influences  of  the  Civil  War  had  gradually  cooled  under 
the  healing  influence  of  Grant.  The  American  people  was 
ready  to  address  itself  bravely  to  the  new  conditions  and 
new  problems,  or  to  old  problems  under  new  conditions. 

I  shall  speak  briefly  here  of  some  of  the  principal  Sena- 
tors who  were  there  when  I  took  my  seat  on  March  4,  1877, 
or  who  came  into  the  Senate  shortly  afterward  during  that 
Congress.  Others  I  have  mentioned  in  other  places  in  this 

William  A.  Wheeler,  of  New  York,  was  Vice-President 
and  President  of  the  Senate.  On  the  Republican  side  were : 
William  B.  Allison  of  Iowa,  Henry  B.  Anthony  and  Am- 
brose E.  Burnside  of  Rhode  Island,  James  G.  Blaine  and 
Hannibal  Hamlin  of  Maine, Blanche  K.Bruce  of  Mississippi, 
Simon  Cameron  of  Pennsylvania,  Roscoe  Conkling  of  New 
York,  John  A.  Logan  of  Illinois,  Henry  L.  Dawes  of  Massa- 
chusetts, George  F.  Edmunds  and  Justin  S.  Morrill  of  Ver- 
mont, Frederick  T.  Frelinghuysen  of  New  Jersey,  John  J. 
Ingalls  of  Kansas,  John  P.  Jones  of  Nevada,  Stanley 
Matthews  and  John  Sherman  of  Ohio,  John  H.  Mitchell  of 
Oregon,  Oliver  P.  Morton  of  Indiana,  Aaron  A.  Sargent  of 


LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  53 

California,  Henry  M.  Teller  of  Colorado,  Bainbridge  Wad- 
leigh.  of  New  Hampshire  and  William  Windom  of  Minne- 

On  the  Democratic  side  were:  Thomas  F.  Bayard  and  Eli 
Saulsbury  of  Delaware,  James  B.  Beck  of  Kentucky,  Francis 
M.  Cockrell  of  Missouri,  A.  H.  Garland  of  Arkansas,  John 
B.  Gordon  of  Georgia,  L.  Q.  C.  Lamar  of  Mississippi,  Matt 
Eansom  of  North  Carolina,  Allen  G.  Thurman  of  Ohio, 
William  P.  Whyte  of  Maryland,  M.  C.  Butler  of  South 
Carolina,  William  W.  Eaton  of  Connecticut,  James  B. 
Eustis  of  Louisiana,  Francis  Kernan  of  New  York,  J.  E. 
McPherson  of  New  Jersey,  and  Daniel  W.  Voorhees  of 

Henry  B.  Anthony  was  the  senior  member  of  the  Senate 
when  I  entered  it.  When  he  died  he  had  been  a  Senator 
longer  than  any  other  man  in  the  country,  except  Mr. 
Benton.  He  had  come  to  be  the  depository  of  its  traditions, 
customs  and  unwritten  rules.  He  was  a  man  of  spirit, 
giving  and  receiving  blows  on  fit  occasions,  especially  when 
anybody  assailed  Rhode  Island.  He  had  conducted  for 
many  years  a  powerful  newspaper  which  had  taken  part  in 
many  conflicts.  But  he  seemed  somehow  the  intimate 
friend  of  every  man  in  the  Senate,  on  both  sides.  Every 
one  of  his  colleagues  poured  out  his  heart  to  him.  It  seemed 
that  no  eulogy  or  funeral  was  complete  unless  Anthony  had 
taken  part  in  it,  because  he  was  reckoned  the  next  friend 
of  the  man  who  was  dead. 

He  was  fully  able  to  defend  himself  and  his  State  and 
any  cause  which  he  espoused.  No  man  would  attack  either 
with  impunity  under  circumstances  which  called  on  him  for 
reply,  as  he  showed  on  some  memorable  occasions.  But  he 
was  of  a  most  gracious  and  sweet  nature.  He  was  a  lover 
and  maker  of  peace.  When  his  own  political  associates  put 
an  indignity  upon  Charles  Sumner,  the  great  leader  of 
emancipation  in  the  Senate,  which  had  been  the  scene  of  his 
illustrious  service,  no  man  regretted  the  occurrence  more 
than  Mr.  Anthony. 


And  straight  Patroclus  rose, 

The  genial  comrade,  who,  amid  the  strife 

Of  kings,  and  war  of  angry  utterance, 

Held  even  balance,  to  his  outraged  friend 

Heart-true,  yet  ever  strove  with  kindly  words 

To  hush  the  jarring  discord,  urging  peace. 

Mr.  Anthony  was  a  learned  man;  learned  in  the  history 
of  the  Senate  and  in  parliamentary  law ;  learned  in  the  his- 
tory of  his  country  and  of  foreign  countries ;  learned  in  the 
resources  of  a  full,  accurate  and  graceful  scholarship.  Since 
Sumner  died  I  suppose  no  Senator  can  be  compared  with 
him  in  this  respect.  Some  passages  in  an  almost  forgotten 
political  satire  show  that  he  possessed  a  vein  which,  if  he 
had  cultivated  it,  might  have  placed  him  high  in  the  roll  of 
satiric  poets.  But  he  never  launched  a  shaft  that  he  might 
inflict  a  sting.  His  collection  of  memorial  addresses  is  un- 
surpassed in  its  kind  of  literature.  He  was  absolutely 
simple,  modest,  courteous  and  without  pretence.  He  was 
content  to  do  his  share  in  accomplishing  public  results,  and 
leave  to  others  whatever  of  fame  or  glory  might  result  from 
having  accomplished  them. 

To  be,  and  not  to  seem,  was  this  man's  wisdom. 

The  satire,  of  which  I  have  just  spoken,  is  almost  for- 
gotten. It  is  a  poem  called  ' '  The  Dorriad, ' '  written  at  the 
time  of  the  famous  Dorr  Rebellion.  The  notes,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  "Biglow  Papers,"  are  even  funnier  than  the 
text.  He  gives  an  account  of  the  Dorr  War  in  two  cantos, 
after  the  manner  of  Scott's  "Marmion."  He  describes  the 
chieftain  addressing  his  troops  on  Arcote's  Hill,  the  place 
where  one  Arcote,  in  former  days,  had  been  hung  for  sheep- 
stealing,  and  buried  at  the  foot  of  the  gallows. 

The  Governor  saw  with  conscious  pride. 
The  men  who  gathered  at  his  side ; 
That  bloody  sword  aloft  he  drew. 
And  "list,  my  trusty  men,"  he  cried— 
"Here  do  I  swear  to  stand  by  you, 
As  long  as  flows  life's  crimson  tide;— 
Nor  will  I  ever  yield,  until 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  55 

I  leave  my  bones  upon  this  hill." 
His  men  received  the  gallant  boast 
"With  shouts  that  shook  the  rocks  around. 
But  hark,  a  voice?    old  Arcote's  ghost 
Calls  out,  in  anger,  from  the  ground, 
"If  here  your  bones  you  mean  to  lay. 
Then,  damn  it,  I'll  take  mine  away." 

I  do  not  know  that  I  can  give  a  fair  and  impartial  estimate 
of  Eoscoe  Conkling.  I  never  had  any  personal  difficulty 
with  him.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was  good  enough  to  say  of 
a  speech  which  I  made  in  the  Presidential  campaign  of  1872, 
that  it  was  the  best  speech  made  in  the  country  that  year. 
But  I  never  had  much  personal  intercourse  with  him,  and 
formed  an  exceedingly  unfavorable  opinion  of  him.  He 
was  an  able  man,  though  not  superior  in  ability  to  some  of 
his  associates.  I  do  not  think  he  was  the  equal  in  debate 
of  Mr.  Blaine,  or  of  Carl  Schurz,  or,  on  financial  questions 
with  which  the  latter  was  familiar,  of  John  Sherman.  But 
he  was  undoubtedly  a  strong  man.  His  speech  nominating 
Grant  at  the  National  Convention  of  1880  was  one  of  very 
great  power.  But  he  was  unfit  to  be  the  leader  of  a  great 
party,  and  was  sure,  if  he  were  trusted  with  power,  to  bring 
it  to  destruction.  He  was  possessed  of  an  inordinate 
vanity.  He  was  unrelenting  in  his  enmities,  and  at  any  time 
was  willing  to  sacrifice  to  them  his  party  and  the  interests 
of  the  country.  He  used  to  get  angry  with  men  simply 
because  they  voted  against  him  on  questions  in  which  he 
took  an  interest.  Once  he  would  not  speak  to  Justin  S. 
Morrill,  one  of  the  wisest  and  kindliest  of  men,  for  months, 
because  of  his  anger  at  one  of  Morrill's  votes.  I  suppose  he 
defeated  the  Republican  Party  in  New  York  when  General 
John  A.  Dix  was  candidate  for  Governor.  That  opinion, 
however,  depends  chiefly  on  common  rumor.  Governor 
Boutwell,  in  his  "  EecoUections, "  says  that  Mr.  Conkling 
contributed  secretly  to  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Blaine,  although 
he  had  been  willing  to  support  Blaine  four  years  before. 
He  was  one  of  the  men  whose  counsel  wrought  grievous 
injury  to  Grant,  and  persuaded  him  to  permit  the  foolish 


attempt  to  nominate  him  for  a  third  term.  The  deserved 
respect  which  the  American  people  had  for  Grant,  and  his 
great  influence,  would  not  induce  them  to  bring  Conkling 
and  the  men  who  were  his  associates  again  into  power.  I 
can  hardly  think  of  a  man  of  high  character  in  the  Republi- 
can Party,  except  Grant,  who  retained  Conkling 's  friend- 
ship. His  resignation  of  the  office  of  Senator  showed  how 
utterly  lacking  he  was  in  sound  political  wisdom,  or  in  lofty 
political  morality.  That  a  Senator  of  the  United  States 
should  vacate  his  own  office  because  he  could  not  control 
Executive  patronage  was  a  proceeding  not  likely  to  be  re- 
garded with  much  respect  by  the  American  people.  I  sup- 
pose he  expected  that  he  would  be  returned  by  the  New 
York  Legislature,  and  that  the  scene  of  his  coming  back 
would  be  one  of  great  dramatic  effect. 

The  reason  of  his  action  was  President  Garfield's  nomi- 
nation of  Judge  Robertson,  who  had  been  his  own  earnest 
supporter  for  the  Presidency,  to  the  office  of  Collector  of  the 
port  of  New  York.  It  happened  in  this  way :  General  Gar- 
field's  nomination  for  the  Presidency,  of  which  I  have  told 
the  story  in  another  place,  was  brought  about  in  part  by  the 
aid  of  some  of  the  New  York  delegation,  led  by  Judge 
Robertson,  who  had  broken  away  from  Conkling 's  leader- 
ship. He  was  of  course  angry.  After  Garfield's  election, 
he  demanded  that  no  one  of  the  New  York  opponents  to 
Grant's  nomination  should  be  appointed  to  office  by  the  in- 
coming Administration.  Garfield  told  me  the  whole  story 
during  the  spring  session  of  1881.  He  had  an  interview 
with  Conkling,  I  think  by  his  own  request,  and  endeavored 
to  come  to  some  understanding  with  him  which  would  ensure 
harmony.  He  told  Conkling  that  he  desired  to  make  one 
conspicuous  appointment  of  a  New  York  man  who  had  sup- 
ported him  against  President  Grant,  and  that  thereafter  ap- 
pointments should  be  made  of  fit  men,  without  regard  to  the 
factional  division  of  the  party  in  New  York,  between  his 
supporters  and  those  of  Grant,  and  that  the  Senators  would 
in  all  cases  be  consulted.  Conkling  would  not  listen  to  the 
suggestion,  and  declared  that  he  would  not  consent  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  Judge  Robertson  to  any  important  office  in  this 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE   IN   1877  57 

country ;  that  if  tlie  President  chose  to  send  him  abroad,  he 
would  make  no  objection.  President  Garfield  told  me  that 
Conkling's  behavior  in  the  interview  was  so  insolent  that  it 
was  difficult  for  him  to  control  himself  and  keep  from  order- 
ing him  out  of  his  presence.  Nothing  could  be  more  prepos- 
terous or  insolent  than  the  demand  of  a  Senator  from  any 
State  that  a  President  just  elected,  who  had  received  the 
support  of  the  people  of  that  State,  should  ostracize  his  own 
supporters.  It  would  have  been  infamous  for  Garfield  to 
yield  to  the  demand. 

I  ought,  in  saying  that  there  was  no  man  of  high  character 
and  great  ability  among  the  leaders  of  the  Eepublican  Party 
who  retained  Conkling's  friendship,  to  have  excepted 
Hamilton  Fish.  He  was  a  man  of  great  wisdom,  who  under- 
stood well  the  importance  to  the  Eepublican  Party  of  avoid- 
ing a  breach  with  the  powerful  Senator  from  New  York. 
But  Conkling  was  jealous  of  all  the  other  able  men  in  the 
Eepublican  Party  in  his  own  State.    He  could— 

Bear,  like  tlie  Turk,  no  brother  near  the  throne. 

The  spirits  of  good  and  evil  politics  have  striven  with  one 
another  in  New  York  from  the  beginning  of  her  history  as 
Jacob  and  Esau  strove  together  in  the  womb.  In  general 
the  former  has  prevailed  in  western  New  York  and  along 
the  lakes.  In  the  city  of  New  York  sometimes  one  has  car- 
ried the  day,  and  sometimes  the  other.  When  the  bad  ele- 
ment was  in  power,  the  noble  State  has  reminded  me  of 
Tennyson's  eagle  caught  by  the  talons  in  carrion,  unable 
to  fly  or  soar. 

Oliver  Wolcott,  who  had  been  one  of  Washington's  Cabi- 
net, afterward  Governor  of  Connecticut,  dwelt  in  New  York 
for  some  time.    He  gives  this  account  of  New  York  politics. 

"After  living  a  dozen  years  in  that  State,  I  don't  pretend 
to  comprehend  their  politics.  It  is  a  labyrinth  of  wheels 
within  wheels,  and  it  is  understood  only  by  the  managers. 
Why,  these  leaders  of  the  opposite  parties,  who— in  the 
papers  and  before  the  world— seem  ready  to  tear  each 


other 's  eyes  out,  will  meet  some  rainy  night  in  a  dark  entry, 
and  agree,  whichever  way  the  election  goes,  they  will  share 
the  spoils  together!" 

John  G.  Palfrey,  in  his  wonderful  ' '  Papers  on  the  Slave 
Power, ' '  was  led  by  his  natural  impatience  with  the  conduct 
of  the  great  State,  which  seemed  to  him  such  an  obstacle  in 
the  path  of  Liberty,  to  utter  the  following  invective : 

"Poor  soulless  giant,  her  honorable  history  is  yet  to 
begin.  From  her  colonial  times,  when,  patching  up  a  das- 
tardly truce,  she  helped  the  French  and  Indians  down  from 
the  Berkshire  hills  against  the  shield  which  brave  Massa- 
chusetts held  over  the  New  England  settlements,  through 
the  time  of  her  traitors  of  the  Revolutionary  age,  down  to 
the  time  of  her  Butlers  and  her  Marcys,  her  Van  Burens 
and  Hoyts,  poltroonery  and  corruption  have  with  her  ruled 
the  hour.  Nature  has  her  freaks,  and  in  one  of  them  she 
gave  a  great  man,  John  Jay,  to  New  York.  Hamilton  was 
a  waif  from  the  West  Indies  on  her  spirit-barren  strand, 
and  Eufus  King  from  Massachusetts.  No  doubt,  among  her 
millions,  she  has  many  wise  and  good,  but  the  day  when  they 
begin  to  impress  any  fit  influence  of  theirs  upon  her  coun- 
sels, will  open  a  new  chapter  in  the  annals  of  New  York." 

I  am  tempted  to  quote  this  powerful  invective  for  its  liter- 
ary excellence,  and  not  for  its  justice.  The  history  of  New 
York,  on  the  whole,  has  been  a  noble  history.  It  must  be 
considered  that  any  people  that  opens  its  hospitable  door  of 
welcome  to  all  mankind,  with  the  elective  franchise,  must 
itself,  for  a  time,  seem  to  suffer  in  the  process,  and  must  be 
strongly  tempted  to  protect  itself  against  evil  government 
by  getting  control  of  the  powers  of  Grovernment  by  unjustifi- 
able methods. 

For  many  years  a  large  majority  of  the  people  of  the  city 
of  New  York  were  of  foreign  birth  or  parentage.  But  how 
wonderfully  most  of  these  have  grown  in  the  elements  of 
good  citizenship,  and  of  honorable  manhood;  and  how 
wonderfully  their  sisters  and  daughters  have  grown  in  the 

LEADBES    OP    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  59 

elements  of  womanhood.  Freedom  is  the  best  school- 

Sometimes  a  political  leader  in  New  York  who  had  got 
power  by  forbidden  ways,  has  used  it  for  the  good  of  the 
Republic.  I  suppose  the  worst  examples  of  all  low  political 
leadership  were  the  Pelhams,  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  and 
his  brother;  yet  without  them,  Lord  Chatham's  glorious 
career  would  have  been  unknown  to  the  history  of  English 
liberty.  Chatham  used  to  say:  "The  Duke  of  Newcastle 
lends  me  his  majority  to  carry  on  the  Government." 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  meaning  to  compare  Roscoe 
Conkling  with  such  characters.  He  was  fearless.  He  was 
a  powerful  debater.  He  never  flinched  in  debate  from  the 
face  of  any  antagonist.  There  was  something  almost  sub- 
lime in  his  lofty  disdain.  He  was  on  the  side  of  the  coun- 
try in  her  hour  of  peril.  I  like  Charles  Sumner  and  John 
Jay  and  John  Adams  better.  Neither  of  these  men  could 
have  lived  long  on  terms  of  friendship  with  Conkling.  I  do 
not  think  George  Washington  could  have  endured  him.  But 
let  what  was  best  in  him,  after  all,  be  remembered,  even  if 
we  do  not  forget  his  great  faults. 

I  ought  not,  in  speaking  of  the  eminent  Senators  whom  I 
have  known,  to  omit  Blanche  K.  Bruce  of  Mississippi.  Ex- 
cept Mr.  Revels,  from  the  same  State,  he  is  the  only  negro 
who  ever  sat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  He  con- 
ducted himself  with  great  propriety.  He  was  always  cour- 
teous and  sensible.  He  had  a  clear  understanding  of  great 
questions  which  came  up,  and  was  quite  influential  with  his 
fellow  Senators.  When  the  Chinese  matter  was  up,  he 
stated  in  a  few  words  that  he  could  not,  when  he  recalled  the 
history  of  his  own  race,  consent  to  vote  for  any  measure 
which  discriminated  against  any  man  by  reason  of  his  race 
or  color.  He  left  the  Senate  Chamber,  I  believe,  with  the 
entire  respect  of  his  associates  on  both  sides.  He  was  after- 
ward Register  of  the  Treasury.  His  speech  and  vote  on  the 
Chinese  question  were  in  contrast  with  those  of  Senator 
Jonas,  of  the  neighboring  State  of  Louisiana.  In  my  speech 
in  opposition  to  the  Chinese  bill,  or  that  on  the  Chinese 


Treaty,  I  alluded  at  some  length  to  the  treatment  of  the 
Jews  in  the  dark  ages  and  down  to  a  very  recent  time. 
Senator  Jonas,  who  was  a  Jew,  paid  me  some  compliments 
about  my  speech.  I  said :  "Why  will  you  not  remember  the 
terrible  history  of  the  men  of  your  own  race  and  blood,  and 
help  me  resist  a  like  savage  treatment  of  another  race?" 
Mr.  Jonas  rejected  the  suggestion  with  great  emphasis,  and 
said:  "Mr.  Hoar,  the  Jews  are  a  superior  race.  They  are 
not  to  be  classed  with  the  Chinese." 

There  were  several  negro  Representatives  from  the  South 
when  I  was  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  All  of  them 
behaved  with  great  propriety.  They  were  men  who  took 
care  of  themselves  and  the  interests  of  their  people  in  any 
debate.  Mr.  Rainey,  of  South  Carolina,  had  a  spirited  tilt 
with  S.  S.  Cox,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  of  the  Democratic 
leaders,  in  which  he  left  Cox  unhorsed  and  on  his  back  in 
the  arena.  None  of  them  ever  said  an  indiscreet  thing,  no 
one  of  them  ever  lost  his  temper  or  gave  any  opportunity 
for  an  angry  or  intolerant  or  contemptuous  reply. 

Soon  after  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Vice-President  of  the 
Confederacy,  came  to  the  House,  in  the  Congress  of  1875-7, 
unanimous  consent  was  asked  that  he  might  address  the 
House  at  length,  without  being  limited  by  the  hour  rule. 
Judge  Hoar,  then  a  member  of  the  House,  stipulated  that 
Mr.  Elliott,  of  South  Carolina,  should,  if  he  liked,  have  leave 
to  reply.  This  could  not  decently  be  refused,  and  that  was 
granted  also.  Thereupon  Stephens  made  a  powerful 
speech,  for  which  he  had  doubtless  made  most  careful 
preparation.  Robert  B.  Elliott  then  made,  on  the  instant 
that  Stephens  got  through,  an  admirable  reply,  of  which  it 
is  great  praise  and  still  not  saying  too  much  that  it  deserves 
to  rank  with  the  speech  of  Mr.  Stephens. 

Elliott  delivered  an  excellent  eulogy  on  Charles  Sumner, 
in  Boston,  which  was  published  with  those  of  Carl  Schurz 
and  George  William  Curtis,  and  was  entirely  worthy  of  the 

Perhaps,  on  the  whole,  the  ablest  of  the  colored  men  who 
served  with  me  in  Congress,  although  each  of  the  gentlemen 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE   IN   1877  61 

I  have  named  deserves  Mgh  eommendation,  was  John 
E.  Lynch  of  Mississippi.  I  had  a  very  pleasant  acquaint- 
ance with  him  when  he  was  in  the  House.  He  was  after- 
ward Fourth  Auditor  of  the  Treasury. 

I  was  the  means  of  procuring  for  him  a  national  distinc- 
tion which  very  much  gratified  the  men  of  his  color  through- 
out the  country.  The  supporters  of  Mr.  Blaine  in  the  Na- 
tional Convention  of  1884  had  a  candidate  of  their  own  for 
temporary  presiding  officer.  I  think  it  was  Mr.  Clayton 
of  Arkansas.  It  was  desired  to  get  a  Southern  man  for 
that  purpose.  The  opponents  of  Mr.  Blaine  also  desired  to 
have  a  candidate  of  their  own  from  the  South.  The  colored 
Southern  men  were  generally  Blaine  men.  I  advised  them 
to  nominate  Lynch,  urging  that  it  would  be  impossible  for 
the  Southern  colored  people,  whatever  their  preference 
might  be  as  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  to  vote  against 
one  of  their  own  color.  Lynch  was  nominated  by  Henry 
Cabot  Lodge,  afterward  my  colleague  in  the  Senate,  and 
seconded  by  Theodore  Eoosevelt  and  by  George  William 
Curtis.  Lynch  presided  over  the  Convention  during  the 
whole  of  the  first  day,  and  a  part  of  the  second.  He  made 
an  admirable  presiding  officer. 

Quite  curiously,  I  have  had  something  to  do  with  intro- 
ducing a  little  more  liberal  practice  in  this  respect  into 
the  policy  of  the  country. 

I  was  the  first  person  who  ever  invited  a  colored  man  to 
take  the  Chair  in  the  Senate.  I  happened  to  be  put  in  the 
Chair  one  afternoon  when  Vice-President  Wheeler  was 
away.  I  spied  Mr.  Bruce  in  his  seat,  and  it  occurred  to  me 
that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  invite  him  to  take  my 
place,  which  he  did. 

When  I  was  presiding  over  the  National  Convention  of 
1880,  one  of  the  English  Royal  Princes,  Prince  Leopold, 
Duke  of  Albany,  son  of  Victoria,  visited  the  Convention. 
He  was  brought  up  and  introduced  to  me.  I  suppose  that 
was  one  of  the  very  rare  instances  in  which  a  scion  of  the 
English  Royal  House  was  presented  to  anybody,  instead  of 
having  the  person  presented  to  him.  Wishing  to  converse 
with  the  Prince,  I  called  Mr.  Bruce  to  the  Chair.    I  thought 


it  would  be  an  excellent  opportunity  to  confer  an  honor  upon 
a  worthy  colored  man  in  the  presence  of  a  representative  of 
this  Eoyal  House.  Frederick  Douglas  afterward  called  on 
me  with  a  delegation  of  colored  men,  and  presented  me 
with  a  letter  signed  by  prominent  colored  men  of  the  coun- 
try, thanking  me  for  this  act. 

It  also  was  my  fortune  to  secure  the  selection,  on  my 
recommendation,  of  the  first  colored  man  ever  appointed  to 
the  Eailway  Mail  Service.  This  was  soon  after  I  entered 
the  House  of  Representatives  in  1869. 

Perhaps  I  may  as  well  add  in  this  connection  that  I  believe 
I  recommended  the  first  married  woman  ever  appointed 
postmaster  in  this  country,  shortly  after  I  entered  the 

When  Colonel  Chenoweth,  who  had  been  on  General 
Grant's  staff,  a  most  brilliant  and  able  officer  of  the  War, 
died  in  office  as  Consul  at  Canton,  China,  to  which  he  was 
appointed  by  President  Grant,  I  urged  very  strongly  upon 
Grant  the  appointment  of  his  widow  to  the  place.  She  had, 
during  her  husband's  illness,  performed  a  great  part  of  the 
duties  very  well,  and  to  the  great  satisfaction  of  the  mer- 
chants doing  business  there.  I  told  General  Grant  the 
story.  He  said  he  would  make  the  appointment— to  use  his 
own  phrase — if  Fish  would  let  him.  But  Mr.  Fish  was 
inexorable.  He  thought  it  would  be  a  very  undignified  pro- 
ceeding. He  also  urged,  with  great  reason,  that  a  Consul 
had  to  hold  court  for  the  trial  of  some  grave  offences,  com- 
mitted often  by  very  bad  characters,  and  that  it  was  out  of 
the  question  that  a  delicate  lady  should  be  expected  to  know, 
or  to  have  anything  to  do  with  them.  So  the  proposal  fell 

Daniel  W.  Voorhees  of  Indiana  served  in  the  House  with 
me.  I  had  with  him  there  one  very  angry  conflict.  But  it 
did  not  interrupt  our  friendly  relations.  He  was  a  man  of 
a  good  deal  of  eloquence,  very  popular  in  his  own  State,  and 
said  to  have  been  a  very  successful  and  able  lawyer,  espe- 
cially in  arguing  cases  to  juries.  His  political  speeches  in 
the  Senate  were  carefully  prepared,  very  able  statements 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  63 

of  Ms  side,  and  very  severe  denunciations  of  his  antagonists. 
But  he  was  a  very  kind-hearted  man  indeed,  always  willing 
to  do  a  kindness  to  any  of  his  associates,  or  to  any  person 
in  trouble.  If  he  could  not  be  relied  on  to  protect  the 
Treasury  against  claims  of  doubtful  validity,  when  they 
were  urged  by  persons  in  need,  or  who  in  any  way  excited 
his  sympathy,  it  ought  to  be  said  in  defence  of  him,  that  he 
would  have  been  quite  as  willing  to  relieve  them  to  the 
extent  of  his  power  from  his  private  resources. 

Bainbridge  Wadleigh  of  New  Hampshire  succeeded  to  the 
Chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections 
after  Mr.  Morton's  death  in  the  summer  of  1869.  He  was  a 
modest,  quiet  and  unpretending  man,  of  stainless  integrity, 
of  great  industry  in  dealing  with  any  matter  for  which  he 
had  direct  responsibility,  and  of  great  wisdom  and  practical 
sense.  I  formed  a  very  pleasant  friendship  with  him,  and 
regretted  it  exceedingly  when  he  left  the  Senate,  after  serv- 
ing a  single  term.  There  was  at  the  time  a  very  bad  prac- 
tice in  New  Hampshire  of  frequently  changing  her  Senators. 
So  few  of  the  very  able  men  who  have  represented  her  in 
the  Senate  for  the  last  fifty  years  have  made  the  impres- 
sion upon  the  public  service,  or  gained  the  fame  to  which 
their  ability  would  have  entitled  them,  if  they  had  had  longer 
service.  Mr.  Wadleigh  was  an  excellent  lawyer,  and  the 
Senate  gave  him  its  confidence  in  all  matters  with  which  his 
important  Committee  had  to  deal. 

David  Davis  of  Illinois  was  a  very  interesting  character. 
He  had  been  a  successful  lawyer,  an  eminent  Judge  in  his 
State,  and  a  very  admirable  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  to  which  office  he  was  appointed  by 
Abraham  Lincoln. 

He  entered  the  Senate  when  I  did,  and  served  one  term  of 
six  years.  His  service  in  the  Senate  did  not  add  at  all  to 
his  distinction.  The  one  thing  he  had  done  in  life  of  which 
he  was  very  proud  and  which  was  of  most  importance,  was 
bringing  about  the  nomination  of  Abraham  Lincoln  at  Chi- 
cago.    Of  that  he  liked  to  discourse  whenever  he  could  get 


a  listener,  and  his  discourses  were  always  so  entertaining 
that  everybody  listened  who  could. 

David  Davis  thought  that  but  for  him  Lincoln  would  not 
have  been  nominated.  I  have  little  doubt  that  he  was  right. 
He  had  many  able  and  bright  men  to  help  him.  But  he  was 
the  leader,  director  and  counsellor  of  all  the  forces.  He 
threw  himself  into  it  with  all  the  zeal  of  a  man  fighting  for 
his  life.  He  made  pledges  right  and  left,  seeming  to  dis- 
cover every  man's  weak  point,  and  used  entreaty,  flattery 
and  promises  without  stint,  and,  if  he  were  himself  to  be 
believed,  without  much  scruple.  When  somebody  said  to 
him  in  my  hearing,  "You  must  have  used  a  good  deal  of 
diplomacy.  Judge,  at  that  Convention. "  "  Diplomacy, ' '  re- 
plied Davis,  ' '  My  dear  man,  I  lied  like  the  devil. ' '  He  had 
that  sense  of  humor  peculiar  to  Americans,  which  likes  to 
state  in  an  exaggerated  way  things  that  are  calculated  to 
shock  the  listener,  which  our  English  and  German  brethren 
cannot  comprehend.  So  I  do  not  think  this  statement  of 
Davis's  is  to  be  taken  without  many  grains  of  salt.  I  sup- 
pose he  thought  the  man  to  whom  he  said  it  would  not  take 
it  too  literally. 

Judge  Davis  was  a  man  of  very  warm  sympathy.  He 
liked  to  give  accounts  of  cases  he  had  tried,  sitting  in  equity, 
or  I  think  sometimes  in  divorce  cases,  where  he  had  invented 
a  curious  rule  of  law,  or  had  stretched  his  discretion,  to  save 
some  poor  widow,  or  wronged  wife,  or  suffering  orphan,  a 
share  of  an  estate  to  which  their  legal  title  was  in  con- 
siderable doubt.  If  he  were  led  by  his  sympathies  ever  to 
be  an  unjust  Judge,  at  least  the  poor  widow  had  no  need 
to  worry  him  by  her  importunities.  He  avenged  her  speed- 
ily the  first  time. 

He  was  a  Republican  before  and  during  the  War,  and  a 
steadfast  supporter  of  Lincoln's  policies.  His  opinions 
had  been  in  general  in  support  of  the  liberal  construction 
of  the  Constitution,  under  which  the  National  powers  had 
been  exerted  to  put  down  the  Rebellion. 

He  was  elected  to  the  Senate  after  resigning  his  place  on 
the  Supreme  Court  Bench,  by  a  union  of  Democrats  of  the 
Illinois  Legislature  with  a  few  discontented  Republicans, 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  65 

defeating  Logan.  When  he  came  to  the  Senate  he  preserved 
his  position  as  an  Independent.  He  did  not  go  into  the 
caucuses  of  either  party.  He  had  no  sympathy  with  the 
more  radical  element  among  the  Democrats.  Yet  he  liked 
to  be  considered  a  special  representative  of  the  Labor  Party 
in  the  country,  I  think  he  hoped  that  there  might  be  a 
union  or  coalition  of  the  Democrats  and  Labor  men  in  the 
Presidential  election  of  1880,  and  that  in  that  way  he  would 
be  elected  President. 

His  seat  was  on  the  Republican  side.  When  there  was  a 
division,  if  he  voted  with  the  Republicans,  he  sat  in  his  seat, 
or  rose  in  his  seat  if  there  was  a  rising  vote ;  but  when,  as 
not  unfrequently  happened,  he  voted  with  the  Democrats, 
he  always  left  his  seat  and  went  over  to  the  Democratic 
side  of  the  Chamber,  and  stood  there  until  his  name  was 
called,  or  his  vote  counted.  As  he  passed  Conkling  one  day 
in  one  of  these  movings,  Conkling  called  out:  "Davis,  do 
you  get  travel  for  all  these  journeys?" 

When  the  Senate  came  together  in  special  session,  on 
Monday,  October  10,  1881,  it  was  found  that  the  Democrats 
had  a  majority  of  two.  One  Senator  only  was  present  from 
Rhode  Island,  one  only  from  Nevada,  and  the  two  newly 
elected  Senators  from  New  York  had  not  been  admitted  to 
their  seats.  A  motion  of  Mr.  Edmunds  that  the  oath  pre- 
scribed by  law  be  administered  to  the  Senators  from  New 
York  was  laid  on  the  table.  On  that  vote  the  Democrats 
had  a  majority  of  two,  Mr.  Davis  voting  with  the  Republi- 
cans. On  a  resolution  that  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  a  Senator 
from  Delaware,  be  chosen  President  pro  tempore,  Mr.  Ed- 
munds moved  an  amendment  by  striking  it  all  out  and  in- 
serting a  resolution  that  the  oath  of  office  be  administered 
to  Mr.  Miller  and  Mr.  Lapham  of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Aid- 
rich  of  Rhode  Island,  by  Mr.  Henry  B.  Anthony,  the  senior 
Senator  of  the  Senate.  That  resolution  was  lost  by  a  vote 
of  thirty-four  to  thirty-three,  Mr.  Davis  voting  with  the 
Republicans.  Mr.  Edmunds  then  moved  to  add  to  the  reso- 
lution declaring  Mr.  Bayard  President  pro  tempore,  the 
the  words  "for  this  day."  That  was  lost  by  one  vote,  Mr. 


Davis  voting  with  the  Eepublicans.  After  several  other 
unsuccessful  attempts,  Mr.  Bayard  was  chosen  President 
pro  tempore,  the  resolution  being  carried  by  a  majority  of 
two  votes,  Mr.  Davis  not  voting.  Thereupon  Mr.  Bayard 
accepted  the  office  in  a  speech,  brief,  but  which  clearly  im- 
plied an  expectation  on  his  part  to  continue  in  it  for  a  con- 
siderable period  of  time. 

The  next  day,  being  Tuesday,  October  11,  Mr.  Aldrich  of 
Ehode  Island,  Mr.  Lapham  and  Mr.  Miller  of  New  York, 
were  admitted  to  their  seats.  This  left  a  majority  of  two 
for  the  Eepublicans,  if  Mr.  Davis  acted  with  them,  and  the 
two  parties  tied,  if  Mr.  Davis  acted  with  the  Democrats. 

The  Democrats  had  succeeded  in  electing  their  President 
pro  tempore,  whom  the  Eepublicans  could  not  displace,  and 
there  was  left  before  the  body  a  struggle  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Senate,  including  the  executive  officers  and  the 
Committees,  in  which  no  progress  could  be  made  without 
Mr.  Davis 's  help. 

That  being  the  condition  of  things,  the  Eepublicans  called 
a  caucus,  in  which  Senator  Logan,  Mr.  Davis's  colleague, 
appeared  with  a  message  from  Mr.  Davis.  The  substance 
of  the  message  was  that  Mr.  Davis  thought  that  the  Eepubli- 
cans ought  to  leave  the  organization,  so  far  as  the  executive 
offices  were  concerned,  in  the  hands  of  the  Democrats,  who 
had  elected  the  existing  officers  during  the  previous  Con- 
gress, and  that  the  Committees  should  be  appointed  with 
Eepublican  majorities.  Mr.  Logan  further  announced  that 
if  the  Eepublicans  should  see  fit  to  elect  Mr.  Davis  President 
pro  tempore,  he  would  vote  in  accordance  with  that  under- 
standing. Mr.  Ingalls  of  Kansas  and  I  were  quite  unwill- 
ing to  accede  to  this  arrangement.  But  at  that  time  the 
Committees  lasted  only  for  the  session  for  which  they  were 
appointed.  So  the  Senate  could  transact  no  business  of 
importance,  and  the  office  of  Secretary,  and  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  and  Door-keeper,  and  all  the  important  offices  of  the 
Senate  would  continue  in  Democratic  hands.  So,  very  re- 
luctantly, we  yielded  to  the  desire  of  our  associates.  Where- 
upon a  resolution  was  adopted  continuing  the  standing  Com- 
mittees for  the  session  as  they  had  come  over  from  the  last 

LEADERS    OP    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  67 

session,  and  indeed  from  the  session  before,  Mr.  Davis 
voting  with  the  Republicans.  This  vote  was  passed  by  a 
majority  of  two  votes.  General  Logan  then  introduced  the 
following  resolution:  That  David  Davis,  a  Senator  from 
Illinois,  is  hereby  chosen  President  pro  tempore  of  the  Sen- 
ate. This  was  also  passed  by  a  majority  of  two  votes,  Mr. 
Davis  and  Mr.  Bayard  not  voting.  Mr.  Bayard  descended 
from  the  elevation  he  had  occupied  for  so  short  a  time,  amid 
general  laughter  in  which  he  good-naturedly  jointed,  and 
Mr.  Davis  ascended  the  throne.  He  made  a  brief  speech 
which  began  with  this  sentence :  ' '  The  honor  just  conferred 
upon  me  comes,  as  the  seat  in  this  body  which  I  now  hold 
did,  without  the  least  expectation  on  my  part.  If  it  carried 
any  party  obligation,  I  should  be  constrained  to  decline  this 
high  compliment.  I  do  not  accept  it  as  a  tribute  to  any  per- 
sonal merit,  but  rather  as  a  recognition  of  the  independent 
position  which  I  have  long  occupied  in  the  politics  of  the 
country. ' ' 

So,  it  was  Mr.  Davis's  fortune  to  hold  in  his  hands  the 
determination  between  the  two  parties  of  the  political  power 
of  the  country,  on  two  very  grave  occasions.  But  for 
his  choice  as  Senator  from  Illinois,  he  would  have  been  on 
the  Electoral  Commission.  I  do  not  think,  in  so  important 
a  matter,  that  he  would  have  impaired  his  great  judicial 
fame  by  dissenting  from  the  opinion  which  prevailed.  But 
if  he  had,  he  would  have  given  the  Presidency  to  Mr. 
Tilden.  And  again,  but  for  the  arrangement  by  which  he 
was  elected  to  the  Presidency  of  the  Senate,  the  Republicans 
would  not  have  gained  control,  so  far  as  it  depended  on  the 

He  did  not  make  a  very  good  presiding  officer.  He  never 
called  anybody  to  order.  He  was  not  informed  as  to  par- 
liamentary law,  or  as  to  the  rules  of  the  Senate.  He  had 
a  familiar  and  colloquial  fashion,  if  any  Senator  questioned 
his  ruling,  of  saying,  "But,  my  dear  sir";  or,  "But,  pray 
consider."  He  was  very  irreverently  called  by  somebody, 
during  a  rather  disorderly  scene  in  the  Senate,  where  he  lost 
control  of  the  reins,  the  "Anarch  old." 

But,  after  all,  the  office  of  presiding  over  the  Senate  is 


commonly  not  of  very  great  consequence.  It  is  quite  im- 
portant that  the  President  of  the  Senate  should  be  a  pleas- 
ant-natured  gentleman,  and  the  gentleman  in  the  Senator 
will  almost  always  respond  to  the  gentleman  in  the  Chair. 
Senators  do  not  submit  easily  to  any  vigorous  exercise  of 
authority.  Vice-Presidents  Wheeler,  Morton  and  Steven- 
son, and  more  lately,  Mr.  Frye,  asserted  their  authority 
with  as  little  show  of  force  as  if  they  were  presiding  over  a 
company  of  guests  at  their  own  table.  But  the  order  and 
dignity  of  the  body  have  been  preserved. 

Mr.  Davis's  fame  must  rest  on  his  long  and  faithful  and 
able  service  as  a  wise,  conscientious  and  learned  Judge.  In 
writing  these  recollections,  I  have  dwelt  altogether  too  much 
on  little  foibles  and  weaknesses,  which  seem  to  have  some- 
thing amusing  in  them,  and  too  little,  I  am  afraid,  on  the 
greater  qualities  of  the  men  with  whom  I  have  served.  This 
is  perhaps  true  as  to  David  Davis.  But  I  have  said  very 
much  what  I  should  have  said  to  him,  if  I  had  been  chatting 
with  him,  as  I  very  frequently  did,  in  the  cloak  room  of  the 

He  was  a  man  of  enormous  bulk.  No  common  arm  chair 
would  hold  him.  There  is  a  huge  chair,  said  to  have  been 
made  for  Dixon  H.  Lewis  of  Alabama,  long  before  the 
Civil  War,  which  was  brought  up  from  the  basement  of 
the  Capitol  for  his  use.  The  newspaper  correspondents 
used  to  say  that  he  had  to  be  surveyed  for  a  new  pair  of 

I  was  one  night  in  the  Chair  of  the  Senate  when  the  ses- 
sion lasted  to  near  three  o  'clock  in  the  morning.  It  was  on 
the  occasion  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  purchasing  silver. 
The  night  was  very  dark  and  stormy  and  the  rain  came 
down  in  torrents.  Just  before  I  put  the  final  question  I 
sent  a  page  for  my  coat  and  hat,  and,  as  soon  as  I  declared 
the  Senate  adjourned,  started  for  the  outer  door.  There 
were  very  few  carriages  in  waiting.  I  secured  one  of  them 
and  then  invited  Davis  and  his  secretary  and  another  Sen- 
ator, when  they  came  along,  to  get  in  with  me.  When  we 
stopped  to  leave  Judge  Davis  at  the  National  Hotel,  where 
he  lived,  it  was  found  impossible  to  get  the  door  of  the  hack 

LEADERS    OP    THE    SENATE   IN   1877  69 

open.  His  great  weight  pressed  it  down,  so  that  the  door 
was  held  tight  as  in  a  vise.  The  hackman  and  the  porters 
pulled  on  the  outside,  and  the  passengers  pushed  and  strug- 
gled from  within;  but  in  vain.  After  fifteen  or  twenty 
minutes,  it  occurred  to  some  one  that  we  within  should  all 
squeeze  ourselves  over  to  one  side  of  the  carriage,  and  those 
outside  use  their  whole  strength  on  the  opposite  door.  This 
was  successful.  We  escaped  from  our  prison.  As  Davis 
marched  into  the  hotel  the  hackman  exclaimed,  as  he  stared 
after  him:  "By  God,  I  should  think  you  was  eight  men." 

Eli  Saulsbury  of  Delaware  was  a  very  worthy  Southern 
gentleman  of  the  old  school,  of  great  courage,  ability  and 
readiness  in  debate,  absolutely  devoted  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Democratic  Party,  and  possessed  of  a  very  high  opinion 
of  himself.  I  knew  him  very  intimately.  He  was  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  and  was 
a  member  of  it  when  I  was  Chairman.  We  went  to  New 
Orleans  together  to  make  what  was  called  the  Copiah  investi- 
gation. We  used  to  be  fond  of  talking  with  each  other.  He 
always  had  a  fund  of  pleasant  anecdotes  of  old  times  in  the 
South.  He  liked  to  set  forth  his  own  virtues  and  proclaim 
the  lofty  morality  of  his  own  principles  of  conduct,  a  habit 
which  he  may  have  got  from  his  eminent  colleague.  Senator 
Bayard,  who  sometimes  announced  a  familiar  moral  princi- 
ple as  if  it  were  something  the  people  who  listened  to  him 
were  hearing  for  the  first  time,  and  of  which  he  in  his  youth 
had  been  the  original  discoverer.  I  once  told  Saulsbury, 
when  he  was  discoursing  in  that  way,  that  he  must  be  de- 
scended from  Adam  by  some  wife  he  had  before  Eve,  who 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  fall.  He  was  fond  of  violently  de- 
nouncing the  wicked  Republicans  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate, 
and  in  Committee.     But  his  bark  was  worse  than  his  bite. 

When  the  Kellogg  case  was  investigated  by  the  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections,  when  I  first  entered  the  Senate, 
Mr.  Saulsbury  rose  in  the  first  meeting  of  the  Committee 
and  proceeded  to  denounce  his  Republican  associates.  He 
declared  they  came  there  with  their  minds  made  up  on  the 
case,  a  condition  of  mind  which  was  absolutely  unfit  for  a 


grave  judicial  office,  in  the  discharge  of  which  all  party 
considerations  and  preconceived  opinions  should  be  ban- 
ished. He  said  we  should  have  open  minds  to  hear  the 
arguments  and  the  evidence  to  be  introduced,  as  if  it  were 
a  solemn  trial  in  a  court  of  justice.  When  he  was  in  the 
midst  of  a  very  eloquent  and  violent  philippic,  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee,  Bainbridge  Wadleigh,  said  quietly, 
"Brother  Saulsbury,  haven't  you  made  up  your  mind!" 
Mr.  Saulsbury  stopped  a  moment,  said,  "Yes,  I  have  made 
up  my  mind, ' '  broke  into  a  roar  of  laughter,  and  sat  down. 

He  was  a  confirmed  and  incorrigible  bachelor.  There 
was  in  New  Orleans,  when  we  were  there,  a  restaurant 
famous  all  over  the  country,  kept  by  a  very  accomplished 
widow.  The  members  of  the  Committee  thought  it  would 
be  a  good  thing  if  we  could  have  such  a  restaurant  as  that 
in  Washington.  We  passed  a  unanimous  vote  requesting 
Mr.  Saulsbury  to  marry  the  widow,  and  bring  her  to  Wash- 
ington, as  a  matter  of  public  duty.  He  took  the  plan  into 
consideration,  but  nothing  came  of  it.  Some  mischievous 
newspaper  correspondent  circulated  a  report,  which  went 
through  the  country,  that  Mr.  Saulsbury  was  very  much  in 
love  with  a  lady  in  Washington,  also  a  charming  widow.  It 
was  said  that  he  visited  her  every  evening;  that  she  had  a 
rare  gift  of  making  rum  punch ;  that  she  always  gave  him  a 
glass,  and  that  afterward,  although  he  was  exceedingly 
temperate  in  such  things,  he  fell  on  his  knees,  offered  him- 
self to  the  widow,  and  was  refused ;  and  that  this  ceremony 
had  been  repeated  nightly  for  many  years.  I  once  men- 
tioned this  story  to  him,  and  he  didn  't  deny  it.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  didn't  admit  it. 

When  he  was  chosen  to  the  Senate  he  had  two  brothers 
who  competed  with  him  for  the  office.  One  of  them  was  then 
Senator.  The  Senate  had  a  good  deal  of  difficulty  in  getting 
through  its  business  before  the  4th  of  March,  when  the  new 
Administration  came  in,  and  the  term  of  the  elder  Mr. 
Saulsbury  ended.  There  had  been  an  all-night  session,  so 
some  of  the  Senators  had  got  worn  out  and  overcome  by  the 
loss  of  sleep.  Just  before  twelve  o'clock  at  noon  Senator 
Willard  Saulsbury  put  his  head  down  on  his  desk  and  fell 

LEADERS    OP   THE    SENATE   IN   1877  71 

asleep.  The  Senate  was  called  to  order  again  for  the  new 
session,  the  roll  called,  and  Mr.  Saulsbury's  brother  Eli  had 
been  sworn  in.  Willard  waked  up,  rose,  and  addressed  the 
Chair.  The  presiding  officer  quietly  replied:  "The  gentle- 
man from  Delaware  is  no  longer  a  member  of  the  Senate." 
Whereupon  he  quietly  withdrew. 

Matthew  C.  Butler  of  South  Carolina  was  another  South- 
ern Democrat,  fiery  in  temper,  impatient  of  control  or  oppo- 
sition, ready  to  do  battle  if  anybody  attacked  the  South, 
but  carrying  anger  as  the  flint  bears  fire.  He  was  zealous 
for  the  honor  of  the  country,  and  never  sacrificed  the  inter- 
est of  the  country  to  party  or  sectional  feeling.  He  was 
quite  unpopular  with  the  people  of  the  North  when  he  en- 
tered the  Senate,  partly  from  the  fact  that  some  of  his  kin- 
dred had  been  zealous  Southern  champions  before  the  War, 
at  the  time  of  some  very  bitter  sectional  strifes,  and  because 
he  was  charged  with  having  been  the  leader  and  counsellor 
in  some  violent  and  unlawful  conduct  toward  the  colored 
people  after  the  War.  I  have  not  investigated  the  matter. 
But  I  believe  the  responsibility  for  a  good  deal  of  what  was 
ascribed  to  him  belonged  to  another  person  of  the  same 
name.  But  the  Eepublicans  in  the  Senate  came  to  esteem 
and  value  Senator  Butler  very  highly.  He  deserves  great 
credit,  among  other  things,  for  his  hearty  and  effective  sup- 
port of  the  policy  of  enlarging  the  Navy,  which,  when  he 
came  into  public  life,  was  feeble  in  strength  and  antiquated 
in  construction.  With  his  departure  from  the  Senate,  and 
that  of  his  colleague.  General  Wade  Hampton,  ended  the 
power  in  South  Carolina  of  the  old  gentry  who,  in  spite 
of  some  grave  faults,  had  given  to  that  State  an  honorable 
and  glorious  career.  When  the  Spanish  War  broke  out. 
General  Butler  was  prompt  to  offer  his  services,  although 
he  had  lost  a  leg  in  the  Civil  War. 

James  B.  Beck  came  into  the  House  of  Eepresentatives 
when  I  did,  in  1869.  He  served  there  for  six  years,  was  out 
of  public  life  for  two  years,  and  in  1877  came  to  the  Senate 
when  I  did. 


I  do  not  think  any  two  men  ever  disliked  each  other  more 
than  we  did  for  the  first  few  years  of  our  service.  He  hated 
with  all  the  energy  of  his  Scotch  soul,— the  perfervidum 
ingeniwm  /S'coior'wm,— everything  I  believed.  He  thought 
the  New  England  Abolitionists  had  neither  love  of  liberty 
nor  care  for  the  personal  or  political  rights  of  the  negro. 
Indeed  he  maintained  that  the  forefathers  of  the  New  Eng- 
land abolitionists  were  guilty  of  bringing  slavery  into  this 
continent.  He  hated  the  modern  New  England  theological 
heresies  with  all  the  zeal  of  his  Scotch  Presbyterian  for- 
bears. He  hated  the  Eeconstruction  policy,  which  he 
thought  was  inspired  by  a  desire  to  put  the  white  man  in  the 
place  where  the  negro  had  been.  He  hated  with  all  the 
energy  of  a  free-trader  the  protection  policy,  which  he 
deemed  the  most  unscrupulous  robbery  on  a  huge  scale.  He 
considered  the  gold  standard  a  sort  of  power  press  with 
which  the  monopolists  of  the  East  were  trying  to  squeeze 
the  last  drop  of  blood  out  of  the  farmers  and  workingmen 
of  the  South.  He  thought  the  public  debt  was  held  by  men 
who  had  paid  very  little  value  for  it,  and  who  ought  to  be 
paid  off  in  the  same  cheap  money  which  was  in  vogue  when 
it  was  originally  incurred.  He  hated  New  England  culture 
and  refinement,  which  he  deemed  a  very  poor  crop  coming 
from  a  barren  intellectual  soil.  He  regarded  me,  I  think,  as 
the  representative,  in  a  humble  way,  of  all  these  things,  and 
esteemed  me  accordingly. 

I  was  not  behindhand  with  him,  although  I  was  not  quite 
so  frank,  probably,  in  uttering  my  opinions  in  public  debate. 
But  I  found  out,  after  a  little  while,  that  the  Northern  men 
who  got  intimate  with  him  on  committees,  or  in  private  in- 
tercourse, found  him  one  of  the  most  delightful  companions, 
fond  of  poetry,  especially  of  Burns,  full  of  marvellous 
stores  of  anecdotes,  without  a  jot  of  personal  malice,  ready 
to  do  a  kindness  to  any  man,  and  easily  touched  by  any 
manifestation  of  kindly  feeling  toward  him,  or  toward  his 
Southern  neighbors  and  constituents.  My  colleague,  Mr. 
Dawes,  served  with  him  on  some  of  the  great  committees  of 
the  Senate  and  in  the  House,  and  they  established  a  very 
close  and  intimate  friendship.     I  came  to  know  Mr.  Beck 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE   IN   1877  73 

later.  But  lie  had  changed  his  feeling  toward  me,  as  I  had 
toward  him,  long  before  either  found  out  what  the  other  was 
thinking  about.  So  one  day— it  was  the  time  of  Mr. 
Dawes's  last  reelection  to  the  Senate— he  came  over  to  my 
side  of  the  Chamber,  took  my  hand  and  said  with  great 
emotion:  "I  congratulate  you  on  the  reelection  of  Mr. 
Dawes.  He  is  one  of  my  dearest  friends,  and  one  of  the 
best  men  I  ever  knew  in  my  life. ' '  And  then,  as  he  turned 
away,  he  added:  "Mr.  Hoar,  I  have  not  known  you  as  well. 
But  I  shall  say  the  same  thing  about  you,  when  your  reelec- 
tion takes  place." 

He  had  a  powerful  and  vigorous  frame,  and  a  powerful 
and  vigorous  understanding.  It  seemed  as  if  neither  could 
ever  tire.  He  used  to  pour  out  his  denunciation  of  the  greed 
of  the  capitalists  and  monopolists  and  protectionists,  with 
a  fund  of  statistics  which  it  seemed  impossible  for  the  in- 
dustry of  any  man  to  have  collected,  and  at  a  length  which 
it  would  seem  equally  impossible  for  mortal  man  to  endure. 
He  was  equally  ready  on  all  subjects.  He  performed  with 
great  fidelity  the  labor  of  a  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations,  first  in  the  House,  and  afterward  in  the 
Senate.  I  was  the  author  of  a  small  jest,  which  half  amused 
and  half  angered  him.  Somebody  asked  in  my  hearing  how 
it  was  possible  that  Mr.  Beck  could  make  all  those  long 
speeches,  in  addition  to  his  committee  work,  or  get  time  for 
the  research  that  was  needed,  and  how  it  was  ever  possible 
for  his  mind  to  get  any  rest ;  to  which  I  answered,  that  he 
rested  his  intellect  while  he  was  making  his  speeches.  But 
this  was  a  sorry  jest,  with  very  little  foundation  in  fact. 
Anybody  who  undertook  to  debate  with  him,  found  him  a 
tough  customer.  He  knew  the  Bible— especially  the  Psalms 
of  David— and  the  poems  of  Burns,  by  heart.  When  he  died 
I  think  there  was  no  other  man  left  in  the  Senate,  on  either 
side,  whose  loss  would  have  occasioned  a  more  genuine 
and  profound  sorrow. 

When  I  came  into  the  Senate  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
characters  in  American  public  life  was  Oliver  P.  Morton 
of  Indiana.     He  had  been  Governor  of  Indiana  during  the 


War.  There  was  a  large  and  powerful  body  of  Copper- 
heads among  the  Democrats  in  that  State.  They  were  very 
different  from  their  brethren  in  the  East.  They  were  ugly, 
defiant  and  full  of  a  dangerous  activity.  Few  other  men 
could  have  dealt  with  them  with  the  vigor  and  success  of 
Governor  Morton.  The  State  at  its  elections  was  divided 
into  two  hostle  camps.  If  they  did  not  resort  to  the  wea- 
pons of  war,  they  were  filled  with  a  hatred  and  bitterness 
which  does  not  commonly  possess  military  opponents.  Gov. 
Morton,  in  spite  of  the  great  physical  infirmity  which  came 
upon  him  before  the  "War  ended,  held  the  State  in  its  place 
in  the  Union  with  an  iron  hand.  When  he  came  to  the 
Senate  he  found  there  no  more  powerful,  brave  or  unyield- 
ing defender  of  liberty.  He  had  little  regard  for  Constitu- 
tional scruples.  I  do  not  think  it  should  be  said  that  he 
would  willingly  violate  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitution. 
But  he  believed  that  the  Constitution  should  be  interpreted 
in  the  light  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  so  as  to  be 
the  law  of  life  to  a  great,  powerful  and  free  people.  To  this 
principle  of  interpretation,  all  strict  or  narrow  criticism, 
founded  on  its  literal  meaning,  must  yield. 

His  public  life  was  devoted  to  two  supreme  objects : 

1.  Preservation  of  the  Constitutional  authority  of  the 

2.  The  maintenance  by  that  authority  of  the  political  and 
personal  rights  of  all  citizens,  of  all  races  and  classes. 

As  I  have  said,  he  interpreted  the  Constitution  in  a  man- 
ner which  he  thought  would  best  promote  these  objects.  He 
had  little  respect  for  subtilties  or  refinements  or  scruples 
that  stood  in  the  way. 

He  was  for  going  straight  to  his  object.  When  the  Hayes 
and  Tilden  contest  was  up,  he  was  for  having  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  put  Hayes  and  Wheeler  in  power 
by  using  all  the  National  forces,  military  and  other,  that 
might  be  needful.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  that 
framed  the  bill  for  the  Electoral  Commission,  but  refused  to 
give  it  his  support. 

I  made  a  very  pleasant  acquaintance  with  him  during  the 
sessions  of  that  Committee.    I  suppose  it  was  due  to  his 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  75 

kindly  influence  that  I  was  put  upon  the  Committee  of  Privi- 
leges and  Elections,  of  which  he  was  Chairman,  when  I  en- 
tered the  Senate.  But  he  died  in  the  following  summer,  so 
I  never  had  an  opportunity  to  know  him  better.  He  was 
a  great  party  leader.  He  had  in  this  respect  no  superior  in 
his  time,  save  Lincoln  alone. 

It  was  never  my  good  fortune  to  be  intimate  with  Zach- 
ariah  Chandler.  But  I  had  a  good  opportunity  for  observ- 
ing him  and  knowing  him  well.  I  met  him  in  1854,  at  the 
Convention  held  in  Buffalo  to  concert  measures  for  pro- 
tecting and  promoting  Free  State  immigration  to  Kansas. 
He  was  the  leading  spirit  of  that  Convention,  full  of  wis- 
dom, energy  and  courage.  He  was  then  widely  known 
throughout  the  country  as  an  enterprising  and  successful 
man  of  business.  When  I  went  into  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, in  1869,  Mr.  Chandler  was  already  a  veteran  in 
public  life.  He  had  organized  and  led  the  political  forces 
which  overthrew  Lewis  Cass  and  the  old  Democratic  Party, 
not  only  in  Michigan  but  in  the  Northwest.  He  had  been 
in  the  Senate  twelve  years.  Those  twelve  years  had  been 
crowded  with  history.  The  close  of  the  Administration  of 
Buchanan,  the  disruption  of  the  Democratic  Party  at 
Charleston,  the  election  and  inauguration  of  Lincoln,  the 
putting  down  of  the  Rebellion,  the  organizing,  directing  and 
disbanding  of  great  armies,  the  great  amendments  to  the 
Constitution,  and  the  contest  with  Andrew  Johnson,  had 
been  accomplished.  The  reconstruction  of  the  rebellious 
States,  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  keeping  the  national 
faith  under  great  temptation,  reconciliation  and  the  proc- 
esses of  legislation  and  administration  under  the  festraints 
which  belonged  to  peace,  were  well  under  way.  In  all  these 
Chandler  bore  a  large  part,  and  a  part  wise,  honest,  power- 
ful and  on  the  righteous  side.  I  knew  him  afterward  in  the 
Department  of  the  Interior.  He  was,  in  my  judgment,  the 
ablest  administrative  officer  without  an  exception  who  has 
been  in  any  executive  department  during  my  public  life. 
His  sturdy  honesty,  his  sound,  rapid,  almost  instinctive. 


judgment,  his  tact,  Ms  business  sense,  his  love  of  justice, 
were  felt  in  every  fibre  and  branch  of  the  great  Interior 
Department,  then  including  eight  great  bureaus  each  almost 
important  enough  to  be  a  Department  by  itself. 

The  humblest  clerk  who  complained  of  injustice  was  sure 
to  be  listened  to  by  the  head  of  that  great  Department,  who, 
with  his  quick  sympathy  and  sound  judgment,  would  make 
it  certain  that  right  would  be  done. 

Chandler  has  little  respect  for  the  refinements  of  speech 
or  for  literary  polish.  He  could  not  endure  Mr.  Sumner's 
piling  precedent  upon  precedent  and  quotation  upon  quota- 
tion, and  disliked  his  lofty  and  somewhat  pompous  rhetoric. 
He  used  sometimes  to  leave  his  seat  and  make  known  his 
disgust  in  the  cloak  room,  or  in  the  rear  of  the  desks,  to 
visitors  who  happened  to  be  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  But 
he  was  strong  as  a  rock,  true  as  steel,  fearless  and  brave, 
honest  and  incorruptible.  He  had  a  vigorous  good  sense. 
He  saw  through  all  the  foolish  sophistries  with  which  the 
defenders  of  fiat  money,  or  debased  currency,  sought  to  de- 
fend their  schemes.  He  had  no  mercy  for  treason  or  rebel- 
lion or  secession.  He  was  a  native  of  New  Hampshire. 
He  had  the  opinions  of  New  England,  combined  with  the 
directness  and  sincerity  and  energy  of  the  West.  He  had 
a  very  large  influence  in  making  the  State  of  Michigan 
another  New  England. 

He  was  a  sincere,  open-hearted,  large-hearted  and  affec- 
tionate man.  He  was  the  last  man  in  the  world  of  whom 
it  would  be  proper  to  speak  as  a  member  of  an  intrigue  or 
cabal.  His  strategy  was  a  straightforward,  downright 
blow.    His  stroke  was  an  Abdiel  stroke. 

This  greeting  on  thy  impious  crest  receive. 

His  eloquence  was  simple,  rugged,  direct,  strong.  He 
had  a  scanty  vocabulary.  It  contained  no  word  for  treason 
but  "treason."  He  described  a  lie  by  a  word  of  three 
letters.  The  character  of  his  speech  was  that  which 
Plutarch  ascribes  to  Demosthenes.  He  was  strongly  stirred 
by  simple  and  great  emotions — love  of  country,  love  of  free- 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  77 

dom,  love  of  justice,  love  of  honesty.    He  hated  cant  and 

I  believe  he  was  fond  of  some  good  literature,  but  he 
was  very  impatient  of  Mr.  Sumner's  load  of  ornament  and 
quotation.  He  had  little  respect  for  fine  phrases  or  for  fine 
sentiment  or  the  delicacies  of  a  refined  literature.  He  was 
rough  and  plain-spoken.  I  do  not  think  he  would  ever  have 
learned  to  care  much  for  Tennyson  or  Browning.  But  the 
Psalms  of  David  would  have  moved  him. 

I  suppose  he  was  not  much  of  a  civil  service  reformer. 
He  expected  to  rule  Michigan,  and  while  he  would  have 
never  bought  or  bribed  an  antagonist  by  giving  him  an 
office,  he  would  have  expected  to  fill  the  public  offices,  so  far 
as  he  had  his  way,  by  men  who  were  of  his  way  of  thinking. 
He  was  much  shocked  and  disgusted  when  Judge  Hoar 
wanted  to  inquire  further  concerning  a  man  whom  he  had 
recommended  for  the  office  of  Judge  of  the  Circuit  Court. 
The  Judge  said  something  about  asking  Reuben  Rice,  a 
friend  he  highly  respected  who  had  lived  long  in  Michigan. 
Chandler  spoke  of  it  afterward  and  said:  "When  Jake 
Howard  and  I  recommended  a  man,  the  Attorney-General 
wanted  to  ask  a  little  railroad  fellow  what  he  thought  of 

He  joined  with  Conkling  and  Carpenter  and  Edmunds  in 
their  opposition  to  the  confirmation  of  Judge  Hoar.  He 
came  to  know  the  Judge  better  afterward  and  declared  that 
he  himself  had  made  a  mistake. 

He  was  a  strong  pillar  of  public  faith,  public  liberty,  and 
of  the  Union.  He  had  great  faults.  But  without  the  aid 
of  the  men  whom  he  could  influence  and  who  honored  him, 
and  to  whom  his  great  faults  were  as  great  virtues,  the 
Union  never  would  have  been  saved,  or  slavery  abolished, 
or  the  faith  kept.  I  hold  it  one  of  the  chief  proofs  of  the 
kindness  of  divine  Providence  to  the  American  people  in  a 
time  of  very  great  peril  that  their  leaders  were  so  different 
in  character.  They  are  all  dead  now— Sumner  and  Fessen- 
den  and  Seward  and  Wilson  and  Chase  and  Stanton  and 
Grant  and  Sherman  and  Sheridan  and  Chandler,— a  circle 


in  which  Lincoln  shines  as  a  diamond  in  its  setting.  Not 
one  of  them  could  have  been  spared. 

It  is  proper  that  I  should  add  that  I  have  known  very- 
well  a  good  many  of  the  most  eminent  citizens  of  Michigan. 
This  list  includes  Grovemor  and  Senator  Henry  P.  Baldwin, 
and  Judge  Christiancy,  who  displaced  Chandler  in  the  Sen- 
ate. I  have  frequently  heard  them  speak  of  Mr.  Chandler. 
Without  an  exception  I  believe  they  held  him  in  profound 
esteem  and  honor.  They  were  proud  of  him  as  the  most 
eminent  citizen  of  their  State  which  has  been  prolific  of 
strong  men,  speaking  of  him  as  we  do  of  Sumner  or 

Mr.  Chandler  was  a  remarkable  example  of  what  I  have 
often  noticed,  how  thoroughly  the  people  come  to  known  the 
true  character  of  a  public  man,  even  when  the  press  of  the 
whole  country  unite  to  decry  him.  I  suppose  there  was  not 
a  paper  in  New  England,  Eepublican  or  Democratic,  that 
spoke  kindly  of  Zach.  Chandler  for  many  years.  He  was 
disliked  by  the  Democratic  press  for  his  unyielding  Re- 
publicanism. He  was  disliked  by  the  Republican  press  that 
supported  Charles  Sumner,  for  his  opposition  to  him.  He 
was  represented  as  a  coarse,  ignorant  and  unscrupulous 
man.  In  the  campaign  of  1880  I  sent  him  a  telegram,  ask- 
ing him  to  visit  me  in  Massachusetts  and  make  a  few 
speeches  in  our  campaign.  I  added :  ' '  You  will  be  received 
with  unbounded  respect  and  honor."  The  telegram  was 
an  astonishment  and  revelation  to  the  old  man.  He  had  no 
idea  that  the  people  of  New  England  had  that  opinion  of 
him.  Governor  Baldwin  told  me  that  he  happened  to  be 
passing  Chandler's  house  just  as  he  received  my  message. 
Chandler  knocked  on  the  window  for  the  Governor  to  come 
in.  He  had  the  telegram  in  his  hand  when  the  Governor 
entered,  and  exclaimed:  "Look  at  that;  read  that;  and  I 
did  not  graduate  at  Harvard  College  either."  His  col- 
league. Senator  Ferry,  alludes  to  his  gratification  at  the  re- 
ceipt of  this  message,  in  his  obituary  delivered  in  the  Sen- 
ate. He  spoke  in  Worcester  and  Boston  and  Lowell,  and  in 
one  or  two  other  places.  His  passage  through  the  State 
was  a  triumphal  march.     He  was  received  as  I  had  pre- 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  79 

dieted.  In  Worcester  we  had  no  hall  large  enough  to  hold 
the  crowds  that  thronged  to  see  him,  and  were  compelled 
to  have  the  meeting  in  the  skating-rink.  Chandler  went 
back  to  Michigan  full  of  satisfaction  with  his  reception.  I 
think  he  would  have  been  among  the  most  formidable  can- 
didates for  the  Presidency  at  the  next  election,  but  for  his 
sudden  death.  If  he  had  been  nominated,  he  would  un- 
doubtedly have  been  elected.  But,  a  short  time  after,  he 
was  one  morning  found  dead  in  his  bed  at  Chicago.  In  his 
death  a  great  and  salutary  force  was  subtracted  from  the 
public  life  of  the  country,  and  especially  from  the  public 
life  of  the  great  State  to  whose  history  he  had  contributed 
so  large  and  noble  a  part. 

I  have  found  among  some  old  notes  a  few  sentences  with 
which  I  presented  him  to  a  mighty  audience  in  my  own 

"Worcester  is  here  in  person  to-night  to  give  a  welcome 
from  the  heart  of  Massachusetts  to  the  Senator  of  Michigan. 
If  our  guest  had  nothing  of  his  own  to  recommend  him,  it 
would  be  enough  to  stir  the  blood  of  Massachusetts  that  he 
represents  that  honored  State,  another  New  England  in  her 
interests  and  in  her  opinions.  With  her  vast  forests,  her 
people  share  with  Maine,  our  own  great  frontier  State,  those 
vast  lumber  interests,  for  which  it  has  been  our  own  policy  to 
demand  protection.  Daughter  of  three  mighty  lakes,  she 
takes  a  large  share  in  our  vast  inland  commerce.  Her 
people  are  brave,  prosperous  and  free.  They  have  iron  in 
their  soil,  and  iron  in  their  blood.  Great  as  is  her  wealth 
and  her  material  interest,  she  shares  with  Massachusetts  the 
honor  of  being  among  the  foremost  of  American  States  in 
educational  conditions.     Massachusetts  is  proud  to— 

Claim  kindred  there,  and  have  the  claim  allowed. 

"But  our  guest  brings  to  us  more  than  a  representative 
title  to  our  regard.  The  memory  of  some  of  us  goes  back 
to  the  time  when,  all  over  the  great  free  Northwest,  the 
people  seemed  to  have  forgotten  to  what  they  owed  their 
own  prosperity.     The  Northwest  had  been  the  gift  of  Free- 


dom  to  the  Eepublic  on  her  birthday.  In  each  of  her  million 
homes  dwells  Liberty,  a  perpetual  guest.  But  yet  that 
people  in  Illinois  and  Michigan  and  Indiana  and  Ohio 
seemed  for  a  time  to  have  forgotten  their  own  history, 
and  to  be  unworthy  of  their  fair  and  mighty  heritage.  They 
had  been  the  trusted  and  sturdy  allies  of  the  slave  power  in 
the  great  contest  for  the  possession  of  the  vast  territory 
between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Pacific.  The  old  leaders, 
Douglas  in  Illinois  and  Cass  in  Michigan,  who  ruled  those 
States  with  an  almost  despotic  power,  sought  to  win  the 
favor  of  the  South  for  their  aspirations  for  the  Presidency 
by  espousing  the  doctrine  of  squatter  sovereignty,  under 
which  the  invaders  from  the  slave  States  hard  by,  without 
even  becoming  residents  in  good  faith,  might  fix  forever  the 
character  of  that  fair  domain.  At  that  time  a  young  knight, 
a  figure  of  manly  courage  and  manly  strength,  came  for- 
ward to  challenge  General  Cass  to  a  struggle  for  the 
supremacy  in  Michigan.  It  was  our  guest  of  this  evening. 
As  you  all  know,  the  young  champion  vanquished  the 
veteran  warrior  in  a  trial  by  battle  for  the  freedom  of  the 
Continent.  I  met  him  at  Buffalo  in  1854,  in  the  height  of 
the  conflict,  at  a  gathering  of  a  few  gentlemen  to  concert 
measures  for  sustaining,  aiding  and  arming  the  Free  State 
immigrants  in  Kansas.  He  was  the  leader  and  the  life  of 
the  company.  Many  of  those  immigrants  had  gone  from 
Worcester  County,  where  the  Emigrants'  Aid  Society  was 
first  devised  by  Edward  Hale  and  organized  by  Eli  Thayer. 
I  met  him  again  when  I  went  to  Washington  in  1869.  I 
found  him  among  the  foremost  of  the  leaders  of  the  Senate. 
He  had  gone  through  the  great  period  of  the  Civil  War,  and 
the  period  before  the  Civil  War.  He  had  stood  by  Lincoln 
in  that  time  of  trouble.  He  had  stood  firm  as  a  rock  for  the 
financial  integrity  of  the  country.  Afterward  it  was  my 
good  fortune  to  know  a  good  deal  of  his  administration  of 
the  great  Department  of  the  Interior.  I  have  never  known, 
or  known  of,  a  better  administration  of  any  Department 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  than  his  of  that 
great  office,  with  its  eight  important  bureaus. 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  81 

"He  brings  to  you  to-niglit  the  news  from  Maine  and  the 
news  from  Ohio.  He  can  tell  you  what  the  Republicans  are 
thinking  of  and  are  doing  all  over  the  country,  as  they  pre- 
pare themselves  for  the  great  contest  beginning  this  year, 
to  end,  as  we  hope  and  believe,  with  a  great  Republican  vic- 
tory in  1880." 

John  James  Ingalls  was  in  many  respects  one  of  the 
brightest  intellects  I  ever  knew.  He  was  graduated  at  Wil- 
liams in  1855.  One  of  the  few  things,  I  don't  know  but  I 
might  say  the  only  thing,  for  which  he  seemed  to  have  any 
reverence  was  the  character  of  Mark  Hopkins.  He  was  a 
very  conspicuous  figure  in  the  debates  in  the  Senate.  He 
had  an  excellent  English  style,  always  impressive,  often  on 
fit  occasions  rising  to  great  stateliness  and  beauty.  He  was 
for  a  good  while  President  pro  tempore  of  the  Senate,  and 
was  the  best  presiding  officer  I  have  ever  known  there  for 
conducting  ordinary  business.  He  maintained  in  the  chair 
always  his  stately  dignity  of  bearing  and  speech.  The 
formal  phrases  with  which  he  declared  the  action  of  the 
Senate,  or  stated  questions  for  its  decision,  seemed  to  be  a 
fitting  part  of  some  stately  ceremonial.  He  did  not  care 
much  about  the  principles  of  parliamentary  law,  and  had 
never  been  a  very  thorough  student  of  the  rules.  So  his 
decisions  did  not  have  the  same  authority  as  those  of  Mr. 
Wheeler  or  Mr.  Edmunds  or  Mr.  Hamlin. 

I  said  to  him  one  day,  "I  think  you  are  the  best  presiding 
officer  I  ever  knew.  But  I  do  not  think  you  know  much 
about  parliamentary  law."  To  which  he  replied:  "I  think 
the  sting  is  bigger  than  the  bee." 

He  never  lost  an  opportunity  to  indulge  his  gift  of 
caustic  wit,  no  matter  at  whose  expense.  When  the  morn- 
ing hour  was  devoted  to  acting  upon  the  reports  of  commit- 
tees in  cases  of  private  claims,  or  pensions,  he  used  to  look 
over,  the  night  before,  the  reports  which  were  likely  to  be  on 
the  next  day's  calendar.  When  a  bill  was  reached  he  would 
get  up  and  make  a  pretty  sharp  attack  on  the  measure,  full 
of  wit  and  satire.  He  generally  knew  very  little  about  it. 


When  lie  got  througli  his  speech  he  would  disappear  into  the 
cloak  room  and  leave  the  Senator  who  had  reported  the  bill, 
and  had  expected  to  get  it  through  without  any  difficulty— 
the  case  being  very  often  absolutely  clear  and  just — to 
spend  his  time  in  an  elaborate  and  indignant  explanation. 

Mr.  Ingalls  disliked  very  much  the  scrupulous  adminis- 
trations of  Hayes  and  Harrison.  He  yielded  to  the  craze 
for  free  silver  which  swept  over  parts  of  the  West,  and  in 
so  doing  lost  the  confidence  of  the  people  to  whose  momen- 
tary impulse  he  had  given  way.  If  he  had  stood  stanchly 
on  the  New  England  doctrines  and  principles  in  which  he 
was  educated,  and  which  I  think  he  believed  in  his  heart, 
he  would  have  kept  his  State  on  the  right  side.  Shortly 
before  the  campaign  in  which  he  was  defeated  for  Senator, 
he  said  in  the  cloak  room,  in  my  hearing,  that  he  did  not 
propose  to  be  a  martyr.  He  was  the  author  of  a  beautiful 
poem,  entitled  "Opportunity,"  which  I  think  should  accom- 
pany this  imperfect  sketch. 

Master  of  human  destinies  am  I ! 
Fame,  love  and  fortune  on  my  footsteps  wait, 
Cities  and  fields  I  walk;  I  penetrate 
Deserts  and  seas  remote,  and  passing  by 
Hovel  and  mart  and  palace— soon  or  late 
I  knock  unbidden  once  at  every  gate! 

If  sleeping,  wake — if  feasting,  rise  before 

I  turn  away.     It  is  the  hour  of  fate, 

And  they  who  follow  me  reach  every  state 

Mortals  desire,  and  conquer  every  foe 

Save  death;  but  those  who  doubt  or  hesitate, 

Condemned  to  failure,  penury  and  woe, 

Seek  me  in  vain  and  uselessly  implore. 

I  answer  not,  and  I  return  no  more! 

Ingalls  was  a  native  of  Haverhill,  Massachusetts.  Some- 
where about  1880,  being  in  Boston,  he  gave  an  interview  to 
one  of  the  papers  in  which  he  commented  very  severely  on 
the  want  of  able  leadership  in  the  Eepublican  Party  in 

LEADERS   OF   THE    SENATE   IN   1877  83 

Massachusetts.  I  suppose  the  criticism  was  directed  at  me, 
although  he  did  not  mention  my  name.  In  1880  Massachu- 
setts gave  a  Republican  majority  of  48,697,  and  Kansas 
a  Eepubhcan  majority  of  41,897.  Mr.  Ingalls's  leadership 
m  Kansas  had  been  manifested  very  largely  in  the  control 
of  official  patronage.  He  said  in  the  Senate  that  he  and  his 
colleague  sought  to  get  rid  of  all  Democrats  in  office  in 
Kansas  as  with  a  fine-toothed  comb. 

So  far  as  I  had  been  concerned,  and  so  far  as  the  Republi- 
can leaders  in  Massachusetts  had  been  concerned,  with  the 
exception  of  General  Butler,  a  different  policy  had  been 
adopted.  We  had  never  attempted  to  make  a  political  in- 
strument of  official  patronage.  There  had  never  been  any- 
thing like  a  "boss"  or  a  machine.  Our  State  politics  had 
been  conducted,  and  our  candidates  for  office  nominated, 
after  the  old  fashion  of  a  New  England  town  meeting. 
When  an  election  approached,  or  when  a  great  measure  or 
political  question  was  to  be  decided,  men  who  were  in- 
fluential consulted  together  informally,  ascertained  the  pub- 
lic sentiment,  deferred  to  it,  if  it  seemed  to  be  right,  and 
did  what  they  could  to  persuade  it  and  guide  it  by  speech 
and  discussion  in  the  press,  if  it  needed  guidance,  and 
trusted,  hardly  ever  in  vain,  to  the  intelligence  of  the  people 
for  the  result.  I  do  not  know  but  the  diminution  of  the 
comparative  importance  of  the  towns,  and  the  change  of 
the  Commonwealth  and  cluster  of  cities  and  manufactur- 
ing villages,  and  the  influx  of  other  elements  than  that  of  the 
old  New  England  stock  may  not  bring  about,  or  if  indeed 
it  is  not  already  bringing  about,  a  different  conduct  of 
affairs.  But  I  have  never  adopted  any  other  method,  and 
I  have  never  desired  that  my  public  life  or  influence  should 
survive  the  introduction  of  any  other  method  in  Massachu- 
setts. Mr.  Ingalls's  methods  and  mine  have  been  tested 
by  their  results.  The  people  of  Kansas  are  largely  of 
Massachusetts  origin.  I  believe  if  her  leading  men  had  pur- 
sued Massachusetts  methods  she  would  to  a  great  extent 
have  repeated  Massachusetts  history.  Our  method  of  polit- 
ical management  and  control  has  been  vindicated  by  the  fact 


that  the  Commonwealth  has  been  kept  true  to  its  ancient 
faith,  except  in  a  very  few  years  when  accidental  causes 
have  caused  the  election  of  a  Democratic  Governor.  Those 
elections  were  protests  against  an  attempt  to  depart  from 
the  old-fashioned  method  of  ascertaining  the  will  of  the 
people  in  selecting  Republican  candidates.  Massachusetts 
has  kept  the  succession  of  United  States  Senators  unbroken, 
and  has  had  a  Republican  delegation  in  the  House  ever 
since  the  party  came  into  power,  with  two  exceptions.  She 
has  in  general  maintained  her  great  Republican  majority. 
On  the  other  hand  Kansas  has  been  represented  in  turn  by 
Democrats  and  Populists  and  Socialists  and  the  advocates 
of  fiat  money  and  free  silver. 

Senator  Cockrell  of  Missouri  entered  the  Senate  two  years 
before  I  did,  and  has  been  there  ever  since.  He  is  a  man 
of  great  sincerity  and  integrity,  of  great  influence  with  his 
own  party,  and  highly  esteemed  by  his  Republican  asso- 
ciates. He  can  generally  be  depended  upon  for  a  fair  vote, 
certainly  always  for  an  honest  and  incorruptible  vote,  and  to 
do  full  justice  to  a  political  opponent.  He  used  for  many 
years  to  prepare  one  speech,  in  each  session,  in  which  he 
went  over  the  political  issues  of  the  two  parties  in  a  violent 
and  extreme  fashion.  He  would  give  us  the  whole  history  of 
the  year  and  point  out  the  imperfections  and  weakness  and 
atrocity  of  the  party  in  power  in  a  most  unsparing  fashion. 
This  speech  he  would  frank  home  to  Missouri.  He  seemed 
to  think  his  duty  as  a  Democratic  politician  was  done,  and 
he  would  betake  himself  to  statesmanship  the  rest  of  the 
year.  I  think  he  has  of  late  discontinued  that  practice.  I 
do  not  want  what  I  have  said  to  be  taken  too  seriously. 
There  is  scarcely  a  member  of  either  side  in  either  House 
who  would  be  more  missed  from  the  public  service,  if  any- 
thing were  to  happen  to  him,  than  Mr.  Cockrell,  nor  for 
whom  all  men  have  a  kindlier  and  more  affectionate  regard. 
Like  Mr.  Allison,  he  knows  the  mechanism  of  administra- 
tion and  legislation  through  and  through.  He  would  be 
entirely  competent  to  fill  a  chair  of  public  administration 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  85 

in  any  college,  if,  as  I  hope  may  be  done,  sucli  chairs  shall 
be  established. 

When  Justin  Morrill  died,  not  only  a  great  figure  left  the 
Senate  Chamber— the  image  of  the  ancient  virtue  of  New 
England— but  an  era  in  our  national  history  came  to  an  end. 
He  knew  in  his  youth  the  veterans  of  the  Revolution  and 
the  generation  who  declared  independence  and  framed  the 
Constitution,  as  the  young  men  who  are  coming  to  manhood 
to-day  know  the  veterans  who  won  our  victories  and  the 
statesmen  who  conducted  our  policy  in  the  Civil  War.  He 
knew  the  whole  history  of  his  country  from  the  time  of  her 
independence,  partly  from  the  lips  of  those  who  had  shaped 
it,  partly  because  of  the  large  share  he  had  in  it  himself. 
When  he  was  born  Washington  had  been  dead  but  ten  years. 
He  was  sixteen  years  old  when  Jefferson  and  Adams  died. 
He  was  twenty-two  years  old  when  Charles  Carroll  died. 
He  was  born  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  year  of  Madi- 
son's Presidency,  and  was  a  man  of  twenty-six  when  Madi- 
son died.  In  his  youth  and  early  manhood  the  manners  of 
Ethan  Allen's  time  still  prevailed  in  Vermont,  and  Allen's 
companions  and  comrades  could  be  found  in  every  village. 
He  was  old  enough  to  feel  in  his  boyish  soul  something  of 
the  thrill  of  our  great  naval  victories,  and  of  the  victory  at 
New  Orleans  in  our  last  war  with  England,  and,  perhaps, 
to  understand  something  of  the  significance  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  of  1815.  He  knew  many  of  the  fathers  of  the 
country  as  we  knew  him.  In  his  lifetime  the  country 
grew  from  seventeen  hundred  thousand  to  thirty-six  hun- 
dred thousand  square  miles,  from  seventeen  States  to  forty- 
five  States,  from  four  million  people  to  seventy-five  million. 
To  the  America  into  which  he  was  born  seventeen  new 
Americas  had  been  added  before  he  died. 

A  great  and  healthful  and  beneficent  power  departed 
from  our  country's  life.  If  he  had  not  lived,  the  history  of 
the  country  would  have  been  different  in  some  very  im- 
portant particulars;  and  it  is  not  unlikely  that  his  death 
changed  the  result  in  some  matters  of  great  pith  and 
moment,  which  are  to  affect  profoundly  the  history  of  the 
country  in  the  future.     The  longer  I  live,  the  more  carefully 


I  study  the  former  times  or  observe  my  own  time,  the  more 
I  am  impressed  with  the  sensitiveness  of  every  people, 
however  great  or  however  free,  to  an  individual  touch,  to 
the  influence  of  a  personal  force.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  a  blind  fate;  no  such  thing  as  an  overwhelming  and 
pitiless  destiny.  The  Providence  that  governs  this  world 
leaves  nations  as  He  leaves  men,  to  work  out  their  own 
destiny,  their  own  fate,  in  freedom,  as  they  obey  or  disobey 
His  will. 

Man  is  his  own  star;  and  the  soul  that  can 

Render  an  honest  and  a  perfect  man 

Commands  all  life,  all  influence,  all  fate; 

Nothing  to  him  falls  early  or  too  late. 

Our  acts  our  angels  are,  or  good  or  ill; 

Our  fatal  shadows  that  walk  by  us  stilL 

It  is  wonderful  what  things  this  man  accomplished  alone, 
what  things  he  helped  others  to  accomplish,  what  things 
were  accomplished  by  the  political  organization  of  which 
he  was  a  leader,  which  he  bore  a  very  large  part  in  accom- 

Mr.  Morrill's  public  life  was  coincident  with  the  advent 
of  the  Republican  Party  to  National  power.  His  first  im- 
portant vote  in  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  helped  to  elect 
Mr.  Banks  to  the  ofl&ce  of  Speaker,  the  first  National  victory 
of  a  party  organized  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery. 
From  that  moment,  for  nearly  half  a  century,  Vermont 
spoke  through  him  in  our  National  Council,  until,  one  after 
another,  almost  every  great  question  affecting  the  public 
welfare  has  been  decided  in  accordance  with  her  opinion. 

It  would  be  impossible,  even  by  a  most  careful  study  of 
the  history  of  the  country  for  the  last  forty  years,  to  deter- 
mine with  exactness  what  was  due  to  Mr.  Morrill's  per- 
sonal influence.  Many  of  the  great  policies  to  which  we 
owe  the  successful  result  of  the  Civil  War— the  abolition 
of  slavery,  the  restoration  of  peace,  the  new  and  enlarged 
definition  of  citizenship,  the  restoration  of  order,  the  estab- 
lishment of  public  credit,  the  homestead  system,  the  founda- 
tion and  admission  of  new  States,  the  exaction  of  apology 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  87 

and  reparation  from  Great  Britain,  the  establishment  of  the 
doctrine  of  expatriation,  the  achievement  of  our  manufac- 
turing independence,  the  taking  by  the  United  States  of  its 
place  as  the  foremost  nation  in  the  world  in  manufacture 
and  in  wealth,  as  it  was  already  foremost  in  agriculture,  the 
creation  of  our  vast  domestic  commerce,  the  extension  of 
our  railroad  system  from  one  ocean  to  the  other— were 
carried  into  effect  by  narrow  majorities,  and  would  have 
failed  but  for  the  wisest  counsel.  When  all  these  matters 
were  before  Congress  there  may  have  been  men  more  brill- 
iant or  more  powerful  in  debate.  But  I  can  not  think  of  any 
wiser  in  counsel  than  Mr.  Morrill.  Many  of  them  must 
have  been  lost  but  for  his  powerful  support.  Many  owed 
to  him  the  shape  they  finally  took. 

But  he  has  left  many  a  personal  monument  in  our  legis- 
lation, in  the  glory  of  which  no  others  can  rightfully  claim 
to  rival  him.  To  him  is  due  the  great  tariff,  that  of  1861, 
which  will  always  pass  by  his  name,  of  which  every  protec- 
tive tariff  since  has  been  but  a  modification  and  adjustment 
to  conditions  somewhat  changed,  conditions  which  in  gen- 
eral, so  far  as  they  were  favorable,  were  the  result  of  that 
measure.  To  him  is  due  the  first  antipolygamy  bill,  which 
inaugurated  the  policy  under  which,  as  we  hope  and  believe, 
that  great  blot  on  our  National  life  has  been  forever  ex- 
punged. The  public  buildings  which  ornament  Washing- 
ton, the  extension  of  the  Capitol  grounds,  the  great  building 
where  the  State,  War  and  Navy  Departments  have  their 
home,  the  National  Museum  buildings,  are  the  result  of 
statutes  of  which  he  was  the  author  and  which  he  conducted 
from  their  introduction  to  their  enactment.  He  was  the 
leader,  as  Mr.  Winthrop  in  his  noble  oration  bears  witness, 
of  the  action  of  Congress  which  resulted  in  the  completion 
of  the  Washington  Monument  after  so  many  years'  delay. 
He  conceived  and  accomplished  the  idea  of  consecrating  the 
beautiful  chamber  of  the  old  House  of  Representatives  as  a 
Memorial  Hall  where  should  stand  forever  the  statues  of  the 
great  men  of  the  States.  So  far,  of  late,  as  the  prosperity 
and  wise  administration  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  has 
depended  upon  the  action  of  Congress  it  has  been  due  to 


him.  Above  all,  the  beautiful  National  Library  building, 
unequalled  among  buildings  of  its  class  in  the  world,  was 
in  a  large  measure  the  result  of  his  persistent  effort  and 
powerful  influence,  and  stands  as  an  enduring  monument 
to  his  fame.  There  can  be  no  more  beautiful  and  enviable 
memorial  to  any  man  than  a  portrait  upon  the  walls  of  a 
great  college  in  the  gallery  where  the  figures  and  faces  of  its 
benefactors  are  collected.  Mr.  Morrill  deserves  this  expres- 
sion of  honor  and  gratitude  at  the  hands  of  at  least  one  great 
institution  of  learning  in  every  American  State.  To  his 
wise  foresight  is  due  the  ample  endowment  of  Agricultural 
or  Technical  colleges  in  every  State  in  the  Union. 

He  came  from  a  small  State,  thinly  settled— from  a  fron- 
tier State.  His  advantages  of  education  were  those  only 
which  the  public  schools  of  the  neighborhood  afforded.  All 
his  life,  with  a  brief  interval,  was  spent  in  the  same  town, 
nine  miles  from  any  railroad,  except  when  absent  in  the 
public  service.  But  there  was  no  touch  of  provincialism  in 
him.  Everything  about  him  was  broad,  national,  American. 
His  intellect  and  soul,  his  conceptions  of  statesmanship  and 
of  duty  expanded  as  the  country  grew  and  as  the  demands 
upon  him  increased.  He  was  in  every  respect  as  competent 
to  legislate  for  fifty  States  as  for  thirteen.  He  would  have 
been  as  competent  to  legislate  for  an  entire  continent  so  long 
as  that  legislation  were  to  be  governed,  restrained,  inspired 
by  the  principles  in  which  our  Union  is  founded  and  the 
maxims  of  the  men  who  builded  it. 

He  was  no  dreamer,  no  idealist,  no  sentimentalist.  He 
was  practical,  wise,  prudent.  In  whatever  assembly  he  was 
found  he  represented  the  solid  sense  of  the  meeting.  But 
still  he  never  departed  from  the  loftiest  ideals.  On  any 
question  involving  righteousness  or  freedom  you  would 
as  soon  have  had  doubt  of  George  Washington's  position 
as  of  his.  He  had  no  duplicity,  no  indirection,  no  diplo- 
macy. He  was  frank,  plain-spoken,  simple-hearted.  He 
had  no  faculty  for  swimming  under  water. 

His  armor  was  his  honest  thought 
And  simple  truth  his  utmost  skill. 

LEADERS    OF    THE    SENATE    IN   1877  89 

The  Apostle's  counsel  to  his  young  disciple  will  serve  for 
a  lifelike  portraiture  of  Justin  Morrill : 

"Be  sober-minded: 

"Speak  thou  the  things  which  become  sound  doctrine: 

"In  all  things  showing  thyself  a  pattern  of  good  works: 
in  doctrine  shewing  uncorruptness,  gravity,  sincerity: 

' '  Sound  speech  that  can  not  be  condemned ;  that  he  that  is 
of  the  contrary  part  may  be  ashamed,  having  no  evil  thing 
to  say  of  you. ' ' 

If  you  wish  to  sum  up  the  quality  of  Justin  Morrill  in  a 
single  word,  mind,  body,  and  soul,  that  word  would  be 
Health.  He  was  thoroughly  healthy,  through  and  through, 
to  the  center  of  his  brain,  to  his  heart's  core.  Like  all 
healthy  souls,  he  was  full  of  good  cheer  and  sunshine,  full 
of  hope  for  the  future,  full  of  pleasant  memories  of  the 
past.  To  him  life  was  made  up  of  cheerful  yesterdays  and 
confident  to-morrows.  But  with  all  his  friendliness  and 
kindliness,  with  all  his  great  hold  upon  the  love  and  respect 
of  the  people,  with  all  his  large  circle  of  friends,  with  all 
his  delight  in  companionship  and  agreeable  converse,  he 
dared  to  be  alone.  He  found  good  society  enough  always, 
if  no  other  were  at  hand,  in  himself.  He  was  many  times 
called  upon  to  espouse  unpopular  causes  and  unpopular 
doctrines.  From  the  time  when  in  his  youth  he  devoted 
himself  to  the  anti-slavery  cause,  then  odious  in  the  nostrils 
of  his  countrymen,  to  the  time  when  in  the  last  days  of  his 
life  he  raised  his  brave  voice  against  a  policy  upon  which 
the  majority  of  his  political  associates  seemed  bent,  he  never 
yielded  the  conclusions  of  his  own  judgment  or  the  dictates 
of  his  own  conscience  to  any  majority,  to  any  party  dicta- 
tion, or  to  any  public  clamor.  When  Freedom,  Eighteous- 
ness  and  Justice  were  on  his  side  he  considered  himself  in 
the  majority.  He  was  constant  in  his  attendance  on  the 
worship  of  a  small  and  unpopular  religious  denomination. 
He  never  lost  his  good  nature,  his  courage,  or  -his  supreme 
confidence  in  the  final  triumph  of  truth. 

Mr.  Morrill  was  not  a  great  political  leader.  Great  politi- 
cal leaders  are  not  often  found  in  the  Senate  nowadays.    He 


was  contented  to  be  responsible  for  one  man;  to  cast  his 
share  of  the  vote  of  one  State ;  to  do  his  duty  as  he  conceived 
it,  and  let  other  men  do  theirs  as  they  saw  it.  But  at  least 
he  was  not  a  great  political  follower.  He  never  committed 
himself  to  the  popular  currents,  nor  studied  the  vanes  to 
see  how  the  winds  were  blowing,  nor  sounded  the  depths 
and  the  shallows  before  he  decided  on  his  own  course. 
There  was  no  wire  running  to  his  seat  from  any  centre  of 
patronage  or  power.  To  use  a  felicitous  phrase,  I  think  of 
Senator  Morgan  of  Alabama,  he  did  not  "come  out  of  his 
door  and  cry  '  Cuckoo ! '  when  any  clock  struck  elsewhere. ' ' 

Mr.  Morrill  was  a  brave  man— an  independent  man.  He 
never  flinched  from  uttering  his  thought.  He  was  never 
afraid  to  vote  alone.  He  never  troubled  himself  about 
majorities  or  administrations,  still  less  about  crowds  or 
mobs  or  spasms  of  popular  excitement.  His  standard  of 
excellence  was  high.  He  was  severe,  almost  austere,  in  his 
judgments  of  other  men.  And  yet,  with  all  this,  everybody 
liked  him.  Everybody  who  came  to  know  him  well  loved 
him.  It  seems  strange  that  he  never  incurred  enmities  or 
provoked  resentments.  I  suppose  the  reason  is  that  he 
never  had  any  controversy  with  anybody.  He  did  not 
mingle  in  the  discussions  of  the  Senate  as  a  debater.  He 
uttered  his  opinion  and  gave  his  reasons  as  if  he  were  utter- 
ing judgments.  But  he  seldom  or  never  undertook  to  reply 
to  the  men  who  differed  from  him,  and  he  rarely,  if  ever, 
used  the  weapons  of  ridicule  or  sarcasm  or  invective,  and  he 
never  grew  impassioned  or  angry.  He  had,  in  a  high  degree, 
what  Jeremy  Taylor  calls  "the  endearment  of  prudent  and 
temperate  speech." 

He  was  one  of  the  men  that  "Washington  would  have  loved 
and  Washington  would  have  leaned  upon.  Of  course  I  do 
not  compare  my  good  friend  with  him  to  whom  no  man 
living  or  that  ever  lived  on  earth  can  be  compared.  And 
Mr.  Morrill  was  never  tried  or  tested  by  executive  or  by 
military  responsibilities.  But  the  qualities  which  belonged 
to  Washington  belonged  to  him— prudence,  modesty,  sound 
judgment,  simplicity,  absolute  veracity,  absolute  integrity, 
disinterestedness,  lofty  patriotism.     If  he  is  not  to  be  com- 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE   IN   1877  91 

pared  with  Washington,  he  was  at  least  worthy  to  he  the 
countryman  of  Washington,  and  to  hold  a  high  place  among 
the  statesmen  of  the  Eepuhlic  which  Washington  founded. 
Neither  amhition  nor  hatred,  nor  the  love  of  ease  nor  the 
greed  of  gain,  nor  the  desire  of  popularity,  nor  the  love  of 
praise,  nor  the  fear  of  unpopularity  found  a  place  in  that 
simple  and  hrave  heart. 

Like  as  a  ship  that  through  the  ocean  wide 
By  conduct  of  some  star  doth  make  her  way — 

no  local  attraction  diverted  the  magnet  in  his  soul,  which 
ever  pointed  to  the  star  of  duty. 

As  I  just  said,  he  was  one  of  the  men  that  Washington 
would  have  loved  and  that  Washington  would  have  leaned 
upon.  If  we  do  not  speak  of  him  as  a  man  of  genius,  he 
had  that  absolute  probity  and  that  sound  common  sense 
which  are  safer  and  better  guides  than  genius.  These  gifts 
are  the  highest  ornaments  of  a  noble  and  beautiful  char- 
acter; they  are  surer  guides  to  success  and  loftier  elements 
of  true  greatness  than  what  is  commonly  called  genius.  It 
was  well  said  by  an  early  American  author,*  now  too  much 
neglected,  that — 

"There  is  no  virtue  without  a  characteristic  beauty.  To 
do  what  is  right  argues  superior  taste  as  well  as  morals; 
and  those  whose  practice  is  evil  feel  an  inferiority  of  in- 
tellectual power  and  enjoyment,  even  where  they  take  no 
concern  for  a  principle.  Doing  well  has  something  more  in 
it  than  the  mere  fulfilling  of  a  duty.  It  is  a  cause  of  a  just 
sense  of  elevation  of  character;  it  clears  and  strengthens 
the  spirits ;  it  gives  higher  reaches  of  thought.  The  world 
is  sensible  of  these  truths,  let  it  act  as  it  may.  It  is  not 
because  of  his  integrity  alone  that  it  relies  on  an  honest  man, 
but  it  has  more  confidence  in  his  judgment  and  wise  con- 
duct, in  the  long  run,  than  in  the  schemes  of  those  of  greater 
intellect  who  go  at  large  without  any  landmarks  of  princi- 
ple. So  that  virtue  seems  of  a  double  nature,  and  to  stand 
oftentimes  in  the  place  of  what  we  call  talent. ' ' 

*  Richard  H.  Dana,  the  elder. 


He  was  spared  the  fate  of  so  many  of  our  great  New  Eng- 
land statesmen,  that  of  closing  his  life  in  sorrow  and  in 
gloom.  His  last  days  were  days  of  hope,  not  of  despair. 
Sumner  came  to  his  seat  in  the  Senate  Chamber  as  to  a  soli- 
tude. When  he  was  struck  with  death  there  was  found 
upon  his  table  a  volume  of  Shakespeare  with  this  passage, 
probably  the  last  printed  test  on  which  his  eyes  ever  gazed, 
marked  with  his  own  hand : 

Would  I  were  dead!   if  God's  good  will  were  so; 
For  what  is  in  this  world,  but  care  and  woe? 

The  last  days  of  Samuel  Adams  were  embittered  by  pov- 
erty, sickness,  and  the  death  of  his  only  son. 

Daniel  Webster  laid  wearily  down  his  august  head  in  dis- 
appointment and  sorrow,  predicting  with  dying  breath  that 
the  end  had  come  to  the  great  party  to  whose  service  his 
life  was  given. 

When  John  Quincy  Adams  fell  at  his  post  in  the  House 
of  Eepresentatives  a  great  newspaper  declared  that  there 
could  not  be  found  in  the  country  another  bold  enough  or 
bad  enough  to  take  his  place. 

But  Mr.  Morrill's  last  days  were  filled  with  hope  and  not 
with  despair.  To  him  life  was  sweet  and  immortality  as- 
sured.    His  soul  took  its  flight 

On  wings  that  fear  no  glance  of  God's  pure  sight, 
No  tempest  from  his  breath. 

And  so  we  leave  him.  His  life  went  out  with  the  century 
of  which  he  saw  almost  the  beginning.  What  the  future 
may  have  in  store  for  us  we  cannot  tell.  But  we  offer  this 
man  as  an  example  of  an  American  Senator  and  American 
citizen  than  which,  so  far,  we  have  none  better.  Surely  that 
life  has  been  fortunate.  He  is  buried  where  he  was  bom. 
His  honored  grave  is  hard  by  the  spot  where  his  cradle  was 
rocked.  He  sleeps  where  he  wished  to  sleep,  in  the  bosom 
of  his  beloved  Vermont.  No  State  ever  mourned  a  nobler 
son;  no  son  was  ever  mourned  by  a  nobler  State.    He  en- 

LEADERS    OF   THE    SENATE    IN   1877  93 

joyed  to  a  ripe  old  age  everything  that  can  make  life  happy 
—honor,  love,  obedience,  troops  of  friends, 

The  love  of  friends  without  a  single  foe, 
Unequalled  lot  below. 

He  died  at  home.     The  desire  of  the  wise  man. 

Let  me  die  in  my  nest, 

was  fulfilled  to  him.  His  eyes  in  his  old  age  looked  un- 
dimmed  upon  the  greatness  and  the  glory  of  his  country, 
in  achieving  which  he  had  borne  so  large  a  part. 



I  WAS  appointed  upon  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections,  March  9,  1877,  and  have  continued  a  member  of 
it  ever  since. 

I  was  appointed  on  the  same  day  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittees on  Claims,  Indian  Affairs  and  Agriculture.  I  made 
a  special  study  in  the  vacation  of  1877,  expecting  to  master, 
as  well  as  I  could,  the  whole  Indian  question,  so  that  my  ser- 
vice on  that  Committee  might  be  of  some  value.  But  I  was 
removed  from  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  by  the 
Committee  who  made  the  appointments,  in  the  following 
December.  This  was  very  fortunate  for  the  country  and 
for  the  Indians.  Mr.  Dawes,  my  colleague,  not  long  after 
was  placed  upon  the  Committee.  He  was  a  most  intelligent, 
faithful  and  stanch  friend  of  the  Indians  during  the  re- 
mainder of  his  lifetime.  He  was  ready,  at  the  Departments 
and  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and  wherever  he  could  exert 
an  influence  to  protect  and  baffle  any  attempt  to  wrong  them. 
His  quiet  and  unpretending  service  to  this  unfortunate  and 
oppressed  race  entitles  him  to  a  very  high  place  in  the  affec- 
tionate remembrance  of  his  countrymen. 

The  Committee  on  Agriculture  was  then  of  little  impor- 
tance. I  remained  a  member  of  it  for  a  few  years,  and  then 
gave  it  up  for  some  service  in  which  my  constituents  were 
more  immediately  interested. 

In  December,  1878,  I  was  put  on  the  Committee  on  Pat- 
ents, and  remained  upon  it  for  a  little  while.  The  Commit- 
tee had  to  deal  occasionally  with  special  cases  of  applica- 
tions for  extension  of  patents  by  statute,  which  demanded 
a  knowledge  of  the  patent  law,  and  industry  and  sound 
judgment  on  the  part  of  the  Senator  to  whom  they  were 



committed  for  report.  But  they  were  not  of  much  public 
interest  or  importance. 

In  December,  1879,  I  was  put  on  the  Committee  on  the 
Eevision  of  the  Laws ;  in  December,  1883,  on  the  Joint  Com- 
mittee on  the  Library ;  in  December,  1884,  on  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  of  which  I  have  been  a  member  ever  since ; 
in  December,  1888,  on  the  Committee  on  Relations  with 
Canada;  in  December,  1891,  on  the  Committee  on  Woman 
Suffrage ;  in  December,  1895,  on  the  Committee  on  Rules. 

I  was  on  the  Committee  on  Claims  for  ten  years,  from 
March  9,  1877,  to  March  4,  1887.  It  is  impossible  to  estab- 
lish by  the  record  the  part  any  man  performs,  who  is  a 
member  of  a  deliberative  body  consisting  of  several  per- 
sons, in  influencing  its  decisions,  or  in  establishing  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  they  are  based.  But  I  believe  I  may  fairly 
claim,  and  that  I  could  cite  my  associates  on  the  Committee 
to  bear  testimony,  that  I  had  a  great  deal  to  do,  and  much 
more  than  any  other  person,  in  settling  the  doctrines  upon 
which  the  Senate  acted  in  dealing  with  the  great  ques- 
tions of  the  claims  of  individuals  and  States  and  corporate 
bodies  growing  out  of  the  War.  Upon  the  rules  then  estab- 
lished the  Government  claims  amounting  to  hundreds  upon 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  were  decided.  The  victori- 
ous Republic  dealt  justly  and  generously  with  the  van- 
quished and  misguided  men  who  had  assailed  it  and  sought 
its  destruction. 

The  general  doctrines  by  which  Congress  was  governed 
were  these : 

1.  No  rightful  claim  accrued  to  anybody  for  the  destruc- 
tion or  injury  to  property  by  military  movements,  or  opera- 
tions, in  a  country  which  was  the  theatre  of  war. 

2.  A  fair  price  was  to  be  paid  for  supplies  for  the  use  of 
the  Army  in  the  field  (1)  to  loyal  persons,  (2)  to  disloyal 
persons,  if  it  were  shown  by  a  certificate  of  the  officer  who 
took  them,  or  otherwise,  that  they  were  taken  with  the  pur- 
pose of  paying  for  them.  Inhabitants  of  States  in  re- 
bellion were  presumed  to  be  disloyal,  unless  their  loyalty 
were  shown  affirmatively. 


3.  A  like  rule  was  followed  in  determining  tlie  question 
of  payment  for  the  use  of  buildings,  occupied  as  soldiers' 
quarters,  or  for  other  official  purposes,  by  the  Army,  or  in- 
jury to  them  caused  by  such  occupation. 

4.  Property  taken  by  the  Army  was  paid  for  at  its  actual 
^alue  to  the  Government,  and  not  necessarily  at  its  value 
to  the  owner. 

5.  No  claim  accrued  by  reason  of  the  destruction  of  prop- 
erty whether  of  loyal  or  disloyal  persons,  to  prevent  its  fall- 
ing into  the  hands  of  the  enemy. 

6.  An  exception  to  the  principle  above  stated,  founded 
not  on  any  strict  principle  or  established  law  or  conduct 
of  Governments,  but  on  sound  public  policy,  was  adopted 
in  the  case  of  institutions  of  charity,  education  and  religion. 

I  first  affirmed  that  doctrine  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, in  the  case  of  the  College  of  William  and  Mary  of  Vir- 
ginia, against  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  my  political 
associates.  I  thought  that  such  a  principle  would  be  a  great 
protection  to  such  institutions  in  all  future  wars,  that  it 
would  tend  to  heal  the  bitter  recollections  of  the  Civil  "War 
and  the  estrangements  then  existing  between  the  sections 
of  the  country.  I  have  lived  to  see  the  doctrine  thoroughly 
established,  the  College  of  William  and  Mary  rebuilt  by 
the  Government,  and  every  church  and  school  and  hospital 
which  suffered  by  the  military  operations  of  the  Civil  War 
reimbursed,  if  it  has  presented  its  claim. 

If  I  have  been  able  to  render  any  public  service,  I  look 
upon  that  I  have  rendered  upon  the  Committee  on  Claims, 
although  it  has  attracted  but  little  attention,  and  is  not  of  a 
nature  to  make  great  public  impression,  as  perhaps  more 
valuable  than  any  other. 

The  duties  of  that  Committee,  when  I  was  upon  it,  were 
very  laborious.  I  find  that  in  the  first  session  of  the  first 
Congress,  I  made  reports  in  seventeen  cases,  each  of  them 
involving  a  study  of  the  evidence,  a  finding  of  the  facts,  and 
an  investigation,  statement  and  consideration  of  important 
principles  of  law,  in  most  cases  to  be  applied  to  a  novel  state 
of  facts.  I  think  that  winter's  work  upon  the  Committee  on 
Claims  alone  required  more  individual  labor  than  that  re- 


quired  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office  by  any  Judge  of 
a  State  Court,  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge ;  and  that  the 
amount  of  money,  and  importance  of  the  principles  involved 
very  far  exceeded  that  involved  in  the  aggregate  of  the 
cases  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  any  State  for  a  like  period. 

I  was  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  the  Library  for  sev- 
eral years.  For  two  or  three  years  I  was  its  acting  Chair- 
man during  the  summer,  and  in  that  capacity  had  to  approve 
the  accounts  of  the  Congressional  Library,  and  the  National 
Botanic  Garden. 

To  that  Committee  were  referred  applications  for  the 
erection  of  monuments  and  statues  and  similar  works 
throughout  the  country,  including  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  the  purchase  of  works  of  art  for  the  Grovernment.  They 
used  to  have  a  regular  appropriation  of  fifteen  thousand 
dollars  annually,  to  be  expended  at  their  discretion,  for 
works  of  art.  That  appropriation  was  stopped  some  years 

My  service  on  that  Committee  brought  me  into  very  de- 
lightful relations  with  Mr.  Sherman  and  Mr.  Evarts.  I 
introduced  and  got  through  a  bill  for  a  monument  and  statue 
to  Lafayette  and,  as  acting  Chairman  of  the  Library  Com- 
mittee was,  with  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Architect 
of  the  Capitol,  a  member  of  the  Commission  who  selected 
the  artists  and  contracted  for  the  statue  and  monument.  A 
resolution  to  build  the  monument  passed  the  Continental 
Congress,  but  was  not  carried  into  effect  by  reason  of  the 
poverty  of  the  Confederacy  in  that  day.  In  Washington's 
first  Administration  somebody  called  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  monument  had  not  been  built,  to  which  my  grand- 
father, Roger  Sherman,  answered:  "The  vote  is  the  monu- 
ment." I  was  led  by  this  anecdote  to  do  what  I  could  to 
have  the  long-neglected  duty  performed.  The  statue  and 
monument,  by  two  French  artists  of  great  genius,  now 
stands  at  one  comer  of  Lafayette  Square.  The  statue  of 
Rochambeau  has  just  been  placed  at  another  corner  of  that 




I  was  also  fortunate  enough,  when  I  was  on  the  Library 
Committee,  to  secure  the  purchase  of  the  Franklin  Papers 
for  the  Department  of  State.  William  Temple  Franklin, 
the  Doctor's  son,  died  in  London,  leaving  at  his  lodgings  a 
mass  of  valuable  correspondence  of  his  father,  and  other 
papers  illustrating  his  life,  especially  in  France.  They 
were  discovered  in  the  possession  of  the  keeper  of  his  lodg- 
ings, many  years  after,  by  Henry  Stevens,  the  famous  anti- 
quary and  dealer  in  rare  books.  Stevens  had  got  into 
difficulties  about  money,  and  had  pledged  the  collection  for 
about  twenty-five  thousand  dollars.  It  had  been  offered 
to  the  Government.  Several  Secretaries  of  State,  in  suc- 
cession, including  Mr.  Blaine,  had  urged  Congress  to  buy 
it,  but  without  avail. 

One  day  Mr.  Dwight,  Librarian  of  the  State  Department, 
came  to  see  me  at  the  Capitol  about  some  not  very  impor- 
tant matter.  "While  I  was  talking  with  him,  he  said  that  the 
one  thing  he  wished  most  was  that  Congress  would  buy  the 
Franklin  Papers.  He  added  "I  think  if  I  were  to  die,  the 
words  'Franklin  Papers,'  would  be  found  engraved  on  my 
heart."  I  said  I  thought  I  could  accomplish  the  purchase. 
So  I  introduced  a  resolution,  had  it  referred  to  the  Library 
Committee,  and  we  had  a  hearing.  It  happened  that  Edward 
Everett  Hale,  who  probably  knew  as  much  about  the  sub-' 
ject  and  the  value  of  the  papers  as  anybody,  was  then  in 
Washington.  At  the  same  time  John  Eussell  Bartlett  was 
here,  who  had  charge  of  the  famous  Brown  Collection  in 
Ehode  Island.  They  were  both  summoned  before  the  Com- 
mittee, and  on  their  statement  the  Committee  voted  to  recom- 
mend the  passage  of  the  resolution.  It  passed  the  Senate. 
The  provision  was  then  put  upon  the  Sundry  Civil  Appro- 
priation bill.  With  it,  however,  was  a  provision  to  buy  the 
Rochambeau  Papers,  which  had  been  sent  to  this  country 
on  the  assurance  of  Mr.  Sherman,  who  was  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  the  Library,  that  Congress  would  pur- 
chase them.  There  was  also  a  provision  for  buying  the 
papers  of  Vans  Murray,  Envoy  to  France  in  Napoleon's 
time ;  and  for  buying  two  other  quite  important  manuscript 
collections.    When  the  bill  got  into  the  House,  all  these 


tilings  were  stricken  out.  The  Conference  Committee  had 
a  great  strife  over  them,  the  House  refusing  to  put  any  of 
them  in,  and  the  Senate  insisting  on  all.  At  last  they  com- 
promised, agreeing  to  take  them  alternately,  including  the 
first  one,  rejecting  the  second ;  including  the  third,  rejecting 
the  fourth,  and  so  on.  In  this  lottery  the  Franklin  Papers 
were  saved,  and  Mr.  Sherman's  Rochamheau  Papers  were 
stricken  out,  much  to  his  disgust.  But  he  got  an  appro- 
priation for  them  in  a  subsequent  Congress. 

The  Committee  on  Eules  have  the  control  of  the  Capitol, 
and  the  not  very  important  power  of  assigning  the  rooms  to 
the  different  Committees.  Beyond  that  they  have  not,  in 
general,  much  to  do.  There  have  been  few  important  amend- 
ments to  the  rules  in  my  time,  of  which  I  was  the  author 
of  two. 

One  of  them  provides  that  an  amendment  to  any  bill 
may  be  laid  on  the  table,  on  special  motion,  without  carry- 
ing the  bill  itself  with  it.  The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table 
not  being  debatable,  this  enables  the  Senate  to  dispose 
promptly  of  a  good  many  propositions,  which  otherwise 
would  consume  a  good  deal  of  time  in  debate.  There  had 
been  such  a  provision  as  to  appropriation  bills  before. 
When  I  first  suggested  this  change,  Mr.  Edmunds  exclaimed 
in  a  loud  whisper,  "we  won't  do  that."  But  I  believe  he 
approved  it  finally. 

The  other  was  an  amendment  relating  to  order  in  debate, 
made  necessary  by  a  very  disagreeable  occurrence,  which 
ended  in  the  exchange  of  blows  in  the  Senate,  by  two  Sena- 
tors from  the  same  State.  I  had  long  had  in  mind  to  pro- 
pose, when  the  occasion  came,  the  last  clause  of  this  amend- 
ment. If  Senators  are  to  be  considered  to  any  degree  as 
ambassadors  of  their  States,  it  would  seem  proper  that  they 
should  not  be  compelled  to  hear  any  reproachful  language 
about  the  State  they  represent.  Such  attacks  have  given 
rise  to  a  great  deal  of  angry  debate  in  both  Houses  of  Con- 

The  following  is  the  amendment: 


No  Senator  in  debate  shall  directly  or  indirectly  by  any 
form  of  words  impute  to  any  Senator  or  to  other  Senators 
any  conduct  or  motive  unworthy  or  unbecoming  a  Senator. 

No  Senator  in  debate  shall  refer  offensively  to  any  State 
of  the  Union. 

I  was  also  for  several  years  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Woman  Suffrage.  That  Committee  used  to  hear  the 
advocates  of  Woman  Suffrage  who  liked  to  have  their  argu- 
ments reported  and  sent  through  the  mails  as  public  docu- 
ments under  the  franking  privilege. 

Although  a  very  decided  advocate  of  the  extension  of  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  women,  I  have  not  thought  that  it  was 
likely  that  that  would  be  accomplished  by  an  amendment  to 
the  National  Constitution,  or  indeed  that  it  was  wise  to 
attempt  to  do  it  in  that  way.  The  Constitution  cannot  be 
amended  without  the  consent  of  three-fourths  of  the  States. 
If  a  majority  can  be  got  in  three-fourths  of  the  States  for 
such  an  amendment,  their  people  would  be  undoubtedly 
ready  to  amend  their  State  Constitutions  by  which,  so  far 
as  each  State  is  concerned,  the  object  would  be  accom- 
plished. So  it  seems  hardly  worth  while  to  take  the  trouble 
of  plying  Congress  with  petitions  or  arguments. 

But  my  longest  service  upon  Committees  has  been  upon 
the  two  great  Law  Committees  of  the  Senate,— the  Com- 
mittee on  Privileges  and  Elections,  and  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary. 

I  have  been  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections  since  March  9,  1877.  I  was  Chairman  for  more 
than  ten  years.  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  since  December,  1884,  and  have  been  its 
Chairman  since  December,  1891,  except  for  two  years,  from 
March  4,  1893,  to  March  4,  1895,  when  the  Democrats  held 
the  Senate. 

While  I  was  Chairman  it  was  of  course  my  duty  to  repre- 
sent and  defend  in  debate  the  action  of  these  Committees  on 
all  the  important  questions  referred  to  them.  I  have  also, 
by  reason  of  my  long  service,  now  more  than  twenty-six 

COMMITTEE    SERVICE    IN    THE    SENATE         101 

years,  on  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  been 
expected  to  take  part  in  the  discussion  of  all  the  Election 
cases,  and  of  all  matters  affecting  the  privileges  and  dignity 
of  the  Senate,  and  of  individual  Senators.  The  investiga- 
tions into  alleged  outrages  at  the  South,  and  wrongs  con- 
nected with  them,  have  been  conducted  by  that  Committee. 
So  it  has  been  my  fortune  to  be  prominent  in  nearly  all  of 
the  matters  that  have  come  up  in  the  Senate  since  I  have 
been  a  member  of  it,  which  have  excited  angry  sectional  or 
political  feeling.  Matters  of  finance  and  revenue  and  pro- 
tection, while  deeply  interesting  the  people,  do  not,  in  gen- 
eral, cause  angry  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  political  leaders. 
To  this  remark,  the  state  of  mind  of  our  friends,  whom  we 
are  in  the  habit  of  calling  Mugwumps,  and  who  like  to  call 
themselves  Independents,  is  an  exception.  They  have  com- 
monly discussed  the  profoundest  and  subtlest  questions 
with  an  angry  and  bitter  personality  which  finds  its  parallel 
only  in  the  theological  treatises  of  the  dark  ages.  It  is 
lucky  for  some  of  us  that  they  have  not  had  the  fires  of 
Smithfield  or  of  the  Inquisition  at  their  command. 

So,  at  various  times  in  my  life,  I  have  been  the  object  of 
the  most  savage  denunciation,  sometimes  from  the  Inde- 
pendent newspapers,  sometimes  from  the  Democratic  news- 
papers, especially  those  in  the  South,  and  sometimes  from 
the  press  of  my  own  party  whom  I  have  offended  by  differ- 
ing from  a  majority  of  my  political  friends. 

But  such  things  are  not  to  be  taken  too  seriously.  I  have 
found  in  general  that  the  men  who  deliver  themselves  with 
most  bitterness  and  fury  on  political  questions  are  the  men 
who  change  their  minds  most  easily,  and  are  in  general  the 
most  placable,  and  not  uncommonly  are  the  most  friendly 
and  pleasant  men  in  the  world  in  private  intercourse.  I 
account  it  my  great  good  fortune  that,  although  I  have  never 
flinched  from  uttering  whatever  I  thought,  and  acting  ac- 
cording to  my  own  conviction  of  public  duty,  that,  as  I  am 
approaching  four  score  years,  I  have,  almost  without  an 
exception,  the  good  will  of  my  countrymen,  certainly  if  I 
may  trust  what  they  tell  me  when  I  meet  in  private  inter- 
course men  from  different  parts  of  the  country,  or  what  they 


are  saying  of  me  just  now  in  the  press.  But  it  is  quite  pos- 
sible that  I  may  say  or  do  something  before  I  get  through 
which  will  change  all  that.  So  whether  my  sunset,  which  is 
to  come  very  soon,  is  to  be  clear  or  under  a  cloud,  it  is  im- 
possible even  to  guess. 

During  this  period  I  have  taken  a  leading  part  in  all  ques- 
tions affecting  the  security  of  the  right  of  suffrage  con- 
ferred by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  on  the 
colored  people,  of  honesty  in  elections,  of  questions  affect- 
ing disputed  titles  to  seats  in  the  Senate,  and  the  extension 
of  suffrage  to  women. 

A  very  interesting  question,  now  happily  almost  for- 
gotten, came  up  at  the  December  session  of  1878,  and  was 
renewed  at  the  following  March  session  of  1879. 

In  1878  the  Democrats  had  a  majority  in  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  while  the  Eepublicans  had  the  Presidency 
and  the  Senate.  In  March,  1879,  there  was  a  Democratic 
majority  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  House,  but  a  Eepubli- 
can  President.  The  Democratic  Party  chafed  exceedingly 
under  the  National  laws  for  securing  the  purity  of  elections, 
and  for  securing  impartial  juries  in  the  courts  of  the  United 
States.  In  the  December  session  of  1878,  the  House  in- 
serted a  provision  repealing  these  laws.  They  insisted,  in 
conference,  on  keeping  in  this  provision,  and  refused  to 
consent  to  the  passage  of  the  Executive,  Legislative  and 
Judicial  Appropriation  Bill,  unless  the  Senate  and  the  Pres- 
ident would  yield  to  their  demand.  Mr.  Beck  of  Kentucky, 
one  of  the  conferrees  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  representing 
what  was  then  the  Democratic  minority,  but  what  became 
at  the  March  session  the  majority,  stated  the  doctrine  of  the 
House,  as  announced  by  their  conferrees— adding  that  he 
agreed  with  it— that  unless  the  States  should  be  allowed  to 
conduct  their  own  elections  in  their  own  way,  free  from  all 
Federal  interference,  they  would  refuse  under  their  Con- 
stitutional right  to  make  appropriations  to  carry  on  the 

This  was  in  defiance  of  the  express  provision  of  the  Con- 
stitution that  Congress  might  at  any  time  alter  the  regula- 
tions prescribed  by  the  State  Legislatures  as  to  time,  place 

COMMITTEE    SERVICE   IN   THE    SENATE         103 

and  manner  of  holding  elections  for  Senators  and  Repre- 

Mr.  Beck  declared  that  that  course  would  be  adopted  and 
adhered  to,  no  matter  what  came  of  the  Appropriation  Bills. 
He  was  followed  by  Mr.  Thurman  of  Ohio,  the  leader  of  his 
party  in  the  Senate,  and  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  when 
it  came  into  power.  He  said  it  was  a  question  upon  which 
he  had  thought  long  and  deeply,  one  of  the  gravest  which 
ever  arose  for  the  consideration  of  the  American  Congress, 
and  added: 

"We  claim  the  right,  which  the  House  of  Commons  in 
England  established  after  two  centuries  of  contest,  to  say 
that  we  will  not  grant  the  money  of  the  people  unless  there 
is  a  redress  of  grievances.  .  .  .  England  was  saved  from 
despotism  and  an  absolute  monarchy  by  the  exercise  of  the 
power  of  the  House  of  Commons  to  refuse  supplies  except 
upon  conditions  that  grievances  should  be  redressed.  .  .  , 
It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  it  was  a  fight  simply  between 
the  Throne  and  the  Commons ;  it  was  equally  a  fight  between 
the  Lords  and  the  Commons ;  and  the  result  of  two  centuries 
of  contest  in  England  was  the  rule  that  the  House  of  Lords 
had  no  right  to  amend  a  Money  Bill." 

This  startling  proposition  claimed  that  it  was  in  the 
power  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to  control  the  entire 
legislation  of  the  country.  It  could,  if  the  doctrine  of  Mr. 
Beck  and  Mr.  Thurman  had  prevailed,  impose  any  condi- 
tion upon  an  appropriation  for  the  Judges '  salaries,  for  the 
salaries  of  all  executive  officers,  for  carrying  on  the  courts, 
and  for  all  other  functions  of  the  Government. 

I  made  a  careful  study  of  this  question  and  satisfied  the 
Senate,— and  I  think  I  satisfied  Mr.  Beck  and  Mr.  Thurman, 
—that  the  doctrine  had  no  support  in  this  country,  and  had 
no  support  even  in  England.  An  examination  of  Parlia- 
mentary history,  which  I  studied  carefully,  afforded  the 
material  for  giving  a  narrative  of  every  occasion  when  the 
Commons  exerted  their  power  of  withholding  supplies  as 
a  means  of  compelling  a  redress  of  grievances,  from  the 


Conquest  to  the  present  hour.  I  did  not  undertake  in  a 
speech,  in  the  Senate  to  recite  the  authorities  in  full.  But  I 
summed  up  the  result  of  the  English  and  American  doctrine 
in  a  few  sentences,  which  may  be  worth  recording  here. 

"First.  The  Commons  never  withheld  the  supplies  as  a 
means  of  coercing  the  assent  of  the  Crown  or  the  Lords  to 

"Second.  The  supplies  withheld  were  not  the  supplies 
needed  for  the  ordinary  functions  of  government,  to  which 
the  ordinary  revenues  of  the  Crown  were  sufficient,  but  were 
for  extraordinary  occasions,  as  to  pay  the  King's  debts,  or 
to  conduct  foreign  wars. 

' '  Third.  That  when  the  hereditary  revenues  of  the  Crown, 
or  those  settled  on  the  King  for  life  at  the  beginning  of  his 
reign,  ceased  to  be  sufficient  for  the  maintenance  of  gov- 
ernment and  for  public  defence,  the  practice  of  withholding 
supplies  ceased. 

"Fourth.  There  has  been  no  instance  since  the  Revolu- 
tion of  1688  of  attaching  general  legislation  to  a  bill  for 
raising  or  appropriating  money,  and  scarcely,  if  ever,  such 
an  instance  before  that  date.  When  such  an  attempt  has 
been  made  it  has  been  resisted,  denounced  and  abandoned, 
and  the  English  Constitutional  authorities,  without  excep- 
tion, are  agreed  that  such  a  proceeding  is  unwarrantable, 
revolutionary  and  destructive  of  the  English  Constitution. 

"It  is  true  that  the  luxury  or  the  ambition  of  Kings  or 
their  indulgent  bounty  to  their  favorites  led  them  to  assem- 
ble Parliament  and  to  ask  additional  supplies  from  their 
subjects.  It  is  also  true  that  these  requests  furnished  the 
occasion  to  the  Commons  to  stipulate  for  redress  of  griev- 
ances. But  the  grievances  so  redressed  had  no  relation  to 
the  laws  of  the  Realm.  These  laws  were  made  or  altered 
by  the  free  assent  of  the  three  estates  in  whom  the  law- 
making power  vested  by  the  Constitution.  The  grievances 
of  which  the  Commons  sought  redress,  whether  from  Tudor, 
Plantagenet  or  Stuart,  were  the  improper  use  of  prerog- 
atives, the  granting  of  oppressive  monopolies,  the  waging 
of  costly  foreign  wars,  the  misconduct  of  favorites  and  the 

COMMITTEE    SERVICE    IN   THE    SENATE         105 

like.  Tlie  improvident  expenditure  of  the  royal  patrimony, 
the  granting  the  crown  lands  or  pensions  to  unworthy  per- 
sons, is  a  frequent  ground  of  complaint. 

"But  there  is  a  broader  and  simpler  distinction  between 
the  two  cases.  The  mistake,  the  gross,  palpable  mistake, 
which  these  gentlemen  fall  into  in  making  this  comparison, 
lies  at  the  threshold.  The  House  of  Commons,  in  its  dis- 
cretion, used  to  grant,  and  sometimes  now  grants,  supplies 
to  the  King.  The  American  Congress,  in  its  discretion, 
never  grants  supplies  to  the  President  under  any  circum- 
stances whatever.  The  only  appropriation  of  the  public 
money  to  which  that  term  can  properly  apply,  the  provision 
for  the  President's  compensation,  is  by  design  and  of  pur- 
pose placed  wholly  out  of  the  power  of  Congress.  The 
provision  is  peremptory  that — 

' ' '  The  President  shall,  at  stated  times,  receive  for  his 
services  a  compensation,  which  shall  neither  be  increased 
nor  diminished  during  the  period  for  which  he  shall  have 
been  elected,  and  he  shall  not  receive  within  that  period 
any  other  emolument  from  the  United  States,  or  any  of 
them. ' 

"Alexander  Hamilton,  in  No.  72  of  the  'Federalist,'  de- 
clares that  the  very  purpose  of  this  enactment  is  to  put  it 
beyond  the  power  of  Congress  to  compel  the  President  'to 
surrender  at  discretion  his  judgment  to  their  inclinations. ' ' ' 

Almost  immediately  after  I  entered  the  Senate  the  case 
came  up  of  the  title  of  William  Pitt  Kellogg  to  a  seat  in  the 
Senate  from  Louisiana. 

In  January,  1877,  a  Eepublican  Legislature  was  organ- 
ized in  Louisiana,  which  recognized  Mr.  Packard  as  the 
lawful  Governor  of  the  State.  Packard  had  been  elected, 
according  to  the  claim  of  the  Eepublicans,  at  the  same  elec- 
tion at  which  the  Eepublican  electors,  who  cast  their  votes 
for  President  Hayes,  had  been  chosen.  That  Legislature 
elected  Kellogg.  "When  President  Hayes  refused  to  con- 
tinue his  support  of  the  Eepublican  government  in  Louis- 
iana by  military  force,  the  Democrats  organized  the  Legis- 
lature, a  Democratic  Governor  took  possession  of  power. 


and  the  Republican  State  Legislature  melted  away.    It  had 
done  little  or  nothing,  except  to  elect  Mr.  Kellogg. 

Under  these  circumstances,  the  Democrats  on  the  Com- 
mittee on  Privileges  and  Elections,  and  in  the  Senate, 
claimed  that  the  recognition  of  the  Democratic  Governor 
had  an  ex  post  facto  operation  which  determined  the  title 
and  the  right  of  the  Legislature  who  undertook  to  elect  Mr. 
Spofford,  Mr.  Kellogg 's  competitor.  The  Republicans,  on 
the  other  hand,  claimed  that  nothing  which  occurred  after- 
ward could  operate  to  determine  the  question  of  the  lawful- 
ness of  the  Kellogg  Legislature,  or  its  power  to  elect  a  Sen- 
ator. That  must  be  settled  by  the  law  and  the  fact.  Upon 
these  we  thought  Kellogg 's  title  to  be  clear.  Kellogg  was 
seated.  But  when  the  Democrats  got  a  majority,  two  years 
later,  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and  Elections,  under  the 
lead  of  Benjamin  H.  Hill  of  Georgia,  undertook  to  set  aside 
this  judgment,  and  to  seat  Mr.  Spofford.  Mr.  Hill  made  a 
long  and,  it  is  unnecessary  to  say,  an  able  report,  setting 
forth  the  view  taken  by  himself  and  by  the  majority  of  the 
Committee,  and  recommended  the  admission  of  Mr.  Spof- 
ford. I  advised  the  Republican  minority  to  decline  to  fol- 
low the  Democrats  into  the  discussion  of  the  evidence, 
and  to  put  the  case  alone  and  squarely  on  the  authority  of 
the  previous  judgment  of  the  Senate.  This  I  did  in  the  fol- 
lowing report: 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Privi- 
leges and  Elections,  to  whom  was  referred  the  memorial 
of  Henry  M.  Spofford,  claiming  the  seat  now  occupied 
by  William  Pitt  Kellogg,  submit  the  following  as  their 
views : 

On  the  30th  day  of  November,  1877,  the  Senate  passed 
the  following  resolutions. 

"Resolved,  That  William  Pitt  Kellogg  is,  upon  the 
merits  of  the  case,  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  from  the  State  of  Louisiana  for  the  term  of 
six  years,  commencing  on  the  4th  of  March,  1877,  and  that 
he  be  admitted  thereto  on  taking  the  proper  oath. 

COMMITTEE    SEEVICE    IN   THE    SENATE         107 

"Resolved,  That  Henry  M.  Spofford  is  not  entitled  to  a 
seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States." 

The  party  majority  in  the  Senate  has  changed  since  Mr. 
Kellogg  took  the  oath  of  office  in  pursuance  of  the  above 
resolution.  Nothing  else  has  changed.  The  facts  which 
the  Senate  considered  and  determined  were  in  existence 
then,  as  now.  It  is  sought,  by  mere  superiority  of  numbers, 
for  the  first  time,  to  thrust  a  Senator  from  the  seat  which 
he  holds  by  virtue  of  the  express  and  deliberate  final  judg- 
ment of  the  Senate. 

The  act  which  is  demanded  of  this  party  majority  would 
be,  in  our  judgment,  a  great  public  crime.  It  will  be,  if 
consummated,  one  of  the  great  political  crimes  in  American 
history,  to  be  classed  with  the  Rebellion,  with  the  attempt 
to  take  possession  by  fraud  of  the  State  Government  of 
Maine,  and  with  the  overthrow  of  State  Governments  in  the 
South,  of  which  it  is  the  fitting  sequence.  Political  parties 
have  too  often  been  led  by  partisan  zeal  into  measures 
which  a  sober  judgment  might  disapprove;  but  they  have 
ever  respected  the  constitution  of  the  Senate. 

The  men  whose  professions  of  returning  loyalty  to  the 
Constitution  have  been  trusted  by  the  generous  confidence  of 
the  American  people  are  now  to  give  evidence  of  the  sincer- 
ity of  their  vows.  The  people  will  thoroughly  understand 
this  matter,  and  will  not  be  likely  to  be  deceived  again. 

We  do  not  think  proper  to  enter  here  upon  a  discussion 
of  the  evidence  by  which  the  claimant  of  Mr.  Kellogg 's  seat 
seeks  to  establish  charges  affecting  the  integrity  of  that 
Senator.  Such  evidence  can  be  found  in  abundance  in  the 
slums  of  great  cities.  It  is  not  fit  to  be  trusted  in  cases 
affecting  the  smallest  amount  of  property,  much  less  the 
honor  of  an  eminent  citizen,  or  the  title  to  an  object  of  so 
much  desire  as  a  seat  in  the  Senate.  This  evidence  is  not 
only  unworthy  of  respect  or  credit,  but  it  is  in  many  in- 
stances wholly  irreconcilable  with  undisputed  facts,  and  Mr. 
Kellogg  has  met  and  overthrown  it  at  every  point. 

George  F.  Hoar, 
Angus  Cameron, 
John  A.  Logan. 


The  Democratic  majority  presented  their  report,  without 
asking  to  have  it  read.  Then  we  of  the  minority  presented 
ours,  and  had  it  read.  It  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Sen- 
ate and  of  the  country.  My  report  contains  but  a  few  sen- 
tences. That  of  the  Democratic  minority  occupies  eight 
columns  of  very  fine  print  in  the  Congressional  Eecord. 
The  result  was  that  some  of  the  Southern  Democrats,  in- 
cluding Mr.  Bayard  of  Delaware,  General  Gordon  of 
Georgia,  General  Wade  Hampton  of  South  Carolina,  and 
Mr.  Pendleton,  of  Ohio,  refused  to  support  their  associates 
in  the  extreme  measure  of  unseating  a  Senator  when  noth- 
ing had  happened  to  affect  the  judgment  which  seated  him, 
except  that  the  majority  of  the  Senate  had  changed.  Some 
of  the  Democratic  gentlemen,  however,  while  resting  upon 
the  old  judgment  of  the  Senate,  and  while  refusing  to  set 
that  aside,  thought  the  Democratic  charges  made  out  on 
the  evidence,  and  that  Mr.  Kellogg 's  conduct  and  character 
deserved  the  severest  denunciation.  Senator  Pendleton,  of 
Ohio,  however,  with  a  courage  and  manliness  that  did 
him  infinite  credit,  after  stating  what  his  Democratic 
brethren  said:  "I  am  bound  to  say  that  I  have  read  the 
evidence  carefully,  and  there  is  nothing  in  it  that  in  the 
least  warrants  any  imputation  upon  the  integrity  of  that 
Senator. ' ' 

In  speaking  of  my  Committee  service,  perhaps  I  ought  to 
say  that  I  was  appointed  one  of  the  Regents  of  the  Smith- 
sonian Institution  in  the  year  1881.  I  liked  the  position 
exceedingly.  I  was  very  much  interested  in  the  work  of  the 
Institution,  and  enjoyed  meeting  the  eminent  scholars  and 
men  of  science  who  were  its  members.  After  I  had  been  a 
member  a  year  or  two  a  very  eminent  Eepublican  Senator 
complained  that  I  was  getting  more  than  my  share  of  the 
prominent  places  in  the  gift  of  the  Senate,  and  specified  the 
Eegency  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  as  an  instance.  I 
thought  there  was  great  justice  in  the  complaint,  and  ac- 
cordingly I  resigned  and  Justin  S.  Morrill  was  put  in  my 
place.  It  was  a  very  fortunate  thing.  Mr.  Morrill's  in- 
fluence secured  the  construction  of  the  National  Museum 
building,  which  I  do  not  think  it  likely  that  I  could  have 

COMMITTEE    SERVICE    IN   THE    SENATE         109 

accomplished.     That  Museum  was  then  in  charge  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution. 

A  somewhat  similar  thing  happened  to  me  later.  In  the 
year  1885  the  Nominating  Committee  of  the  Senate,  of  which 
Senator  Allison  was  then  Chairman,  proposed  my  name  for 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  I  should  have  liked 
that  service  very  much.  I  should  have  liked  to  study  the 
history  of  our  diplomacy,  and  the  National  interests  spe- 
cially in  charge  of  that  Committee,  better  than  anything  else 
I  can  think  of.  But  I  was  then  a  member  of  the  Committees 
on  the  Judiciary,  Privileges  and  Elections,  Library,  Patents 
and  the  Select  Committee  to  Inquire  into  the  Claims  of  Citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  against  Nicaragua,  no  one  of 
which  I  desired  to  give  up.  On  the  other  hand.  Senator 
Frye  of  Maine,  a  very  able  Senator  to  whom  the  Eepub- 
licans  of  Massachusetts  were  under  special  obligations 
for  his  service  in  their  campaigns,  was  not  at  that  time 
placed  in  positions  on  Committee  service  such  as  his  ability 
and  merit  entitled  him  to.  Accordingly  I  told  the  Com- 
mittee I  thought  they  had  better  amend  their  report  and  put 
Mr.  Frye  on  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  instead 
of  myself.     That  was  done. 

I  incline  to  think  that  if  that  had  not  been  done,  and  I 
had  remained  on  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  that 
I  could  have  defeated  the  Spanish  Treaty,  prevented  the 
destruction  of  the  Republic  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  and 
the  commitment  of  this  country  to  the  doctrine  that  we  can 
govern  dependencies  under  our  Constitution,  in  which  the 
people  have  no  political  or  Constitutional  rights  but  such  as 
Congress  choose  to  recognize. 

I  am  not  sure  that  modesty  or  disinterestedness  has  much 
place  in  the  matter  of  the  acceptance  of  high  political 
office.  We  often  hear  a  gentleman  say :  "  I  am  not  fit  to  be 
Judge ;  I  am  not  fit  to  be  Grovernor,  or  Senator,  or  member 
of  Congress.  I  think  other  men  are  better  qualified,  and  I 
will  not  consent  to  stand  in  their  way."  This  is  often  said 
with  the  utmost  sincerity.  But  anybody  who  acts  on  such 
a  feeling  ought  to  remember  that  if  he  accept  the  office,  it 
will  not  be  filled  by  a  worse  man  than  he ;  if  he  accept  the 


office,  it  being  a  political  office,  he  is  sure  that  the  office  will 
be  filled  by  a  man  who  will  desire  to  accomplish,  and  will  do 
his  best  to  accomplish,  the  things  he  thinks  for  the  public 
good.  He  should  also  remember,  so  far  as  the  matter 
of  ability  is  concerned,  that  other  men  are  likely  to  be  much 
better  judges  of  his  capacity  than  he  is  himself.  If  men 
are  likely  often  to  overrate  their  own  capacity,  they  are  also 
very  often  likely  to  underrate  it. 

Let  me  not  be  understood  as  commending  the  miserable 
self-seeking  which  too  often  leads  men  to  urge  their  own 
claims  without  regard  to  the  public  interests.  A  man  who 
is  his  own  candidate  is  commonly  a  very  bad  candidate  for 
his  party. 

One  vote,  more  than  once,  would  have  saved  the  country 
from  what  I  think  its  wretched  policy  in  regard  to  the 
Philippine  Islands.  There  was  just  one  vote  to  spare  when 
the  Spanish  Treaty  was  ratified.  One  Senator  waited 
before  voting  until  the  roll-call  was  over  and  the  list  of  the 
votes  read  by  the  clerk,  before  he  finally  voted  for  the 
treaty.  He  said  he  did  not  wish  to  butt  his  head  against 
the  sentiment  of  his  State  if  he  could  do  no  good ;  but  if  his 
vote  would  defeat  it,  he  should  vote  against  it.  If  there  had 
been  one  less  vote,  his  vote  would  have  defeated  it.  The 
Treaty  would  have  been  lost,  in  my  opinion,  if  Senator  Gray, 
one  of  the  Commissioners  who  made  it,  who  earnestly  pro- 
tested against  it,  but  afterward  supported  it,  had  not  been 
a  member  of  the  Commission.  The  resolution  of  Mr.  Bacon, 
declaring  our  purpose  to  recognize  the  independence  of  the 
Philippine  people,  if  they  desired  it,  was  lost  also  by  a  single 
vote.  The  Philippine  Treaty  would  have  been  lost  but 
for  Mr.  Bryan's  personal  interposition  in  its  behalf.  It 
would  have  been  defeated,  in  my  judgment,  if  Speaker 
Reed,  a  man  second  in  influence  and  in  power  in  this 
country  to  President  McKinley  alone,  had  seen  it  to  be 
his  duty  to  remain  in  public  life,  and  lead  the  fight 
against  it. 

So  I  think  it  is  rarely  safe  for  a  man  who  is  in  political 
life  for  public,  and  not  for  personal  ends,  and  who  values 
the  political  principles  which  he  professes,  to  decline  any 

COMMITTEE    SERVICE    IN   THE    SENATE         111 

position  of  power,  either  from  modesty,  doubt  of  his  own 
ability,  or  from  a  desire  to  be  generous  to  other  men. 

My  twenty  years'  service  on  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary,  so  far  as  it  is  worth  narrating,  will  appear  in  the 
account  of  the  various  legal  and  Constitutional  questions 
which  it  affected. 


I  HAVE  throTigliout  my  whole  public  political  life  acted 
upon  my  own  judgment.  I  have  done  wliat  I  thought  for 
the  public  interest  without  much  troubling  myself  about 
public  opinion.  I  always  took  a  good  deal  of  pride  in  a 
saying  of  Roger  Sherman's.  He  was  asked  if  he  did  not 
think  some  vote  of  his  would  be  very  much  disapproved  in 
Connecticut,  to  which  he  replied  that  he  knew  but  one  way 
to  ascertain  the  public  opinion  of  Connecticut;  that  was  to 
ascertain  what  was  right.  "When  he  had  found  that  out,  he 
was  quite  sure  that  it  would  meet  the  approval  of  Con- 
necticut. That  in  general  has  been  in  my  judgment  abso- 
lutely and  literally  true  of  Massachusetts.  It  has  required 
no  courage  for  any  representative  of  hers  to  do  what  he 
thought  was  right.  She  is  apt  to  select  to  speak  for  her, 
certainly  those  she  sends  to  the  United  States  Senate,  in 
whose  choice  the  whole  Commonwealth  has  a  part,  men  who 
are  in  general  of  the  same  way  of  thinking,  and  governed 
by  the  same  principles  as  are  the  majority  of  her  people. 
When  she  has  chosen  them  she  expects  them  to  act  accord- 
ing to  their  best  judgment,  and  not  to  be  thinking  about 
popularity.  She  likes  independence  better  than  obsequious- 
ness. The  one  thing  the  people  of  Massachusetts  will  not 
forgive  in  a  public  servant  is  that  he  should  act  against  his 
own  honest  judgment  to  please  them.  I  am  speaking  of 
her  sober,  second  thought.  Her  people,  like  the  rest  of 
mankind,  are  liable  to  waves  of  emotion  and  of  prejudice. 
This  is  true  the  world  over.  It  is  as  true  of  good  men  as 
of  bad  men,  of  educated  as  of  ignorant  men,  whenever  they 
are  to  act  in  large  masses.  Alexander  Hamilton  said  that 
if  every  Athenian  citizen  had  been  a  Socrates,  still  every 
Athenian  assembly  would  have  been  a  mob.     So  I  claim  no 



credit  that  I  have  voted  and  spoken  as  I  thought,  always 
without  stopping  to  consider  whether  public  opinion  would 
support  me. 

The  only  serious  temptation  I  have  ever  had  in  my  public 
life  came  to  me  in  the  summer  of  1882,  when  the  measure 
known  as  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill  was  pending.  The  bill 
provided  for  an  expenditure  of  about  eighteen  million  dol- 
lars. Of  this  a  little  more  than  four  million  was  for  the 
execution  of  a  scheme  for  the  improvement  of  the  Missis- 
sippi River  and  its  tributaries,  which  had  been  recom- 
mended by  President  Arthur  in  a  special  message.  All  the 
other  appropriations  put  together  were  a  little  less  than 
fourteen  million  dollars.  The  bill  passed  both  Houses. 
President  Arthur  vetoed  it,  alleging  as  a  reason  that  the 
measure  was  extravagant;  that  the  public  works  provided 
for  in  it  were  of  local  interest,  not  for  the  advantage  of 
international  or  interstate  commerce;  and  that  it  had  got 
through  by  a  system  of  log-rolling,  the  friends  of  bad 
schemes  in  one  State  joining  with  the  friends  of  bad 
schemes  in  another,  making  common  cause  to  support  the 
bill.  He  added  that  in  that  way,  the  more  objectionable  the 
measure,  the  more  support  it  would  get.  The  press  of  the 
country,  almost  without  exception,  supported  the  President. 
The  reasons  which  applied  to  each  improvement  were  not 
well  understood  by  the  public.  So  the  conductors  of  the 
newspapers  naturally  supposed  the  President  to  be  in  the 
right  in  his  facts.  The  Democratic  newspapers  were  eager 
to  attack  Republican  measures.  Where  there  were  factions 
in  the  Republican  Party,  the  Republican  papers  of  one  fac- 
tion were  ready  to  attack  the  men  who  belonged  to  the 
other.  The  independent  newspapers  welcomed  any  oppor- 
tunity to  support  their  theory  that  American  public  life 
was  rotten  and  corrupt.  So  when  the  question  came  up 
whether  the  bill  should  pass  notwithstanding  the  objections 
of  the  President,  there  was  a  storm  of  indignation  through- 
out the  country  against  the  men  who  supported  it. 

But  the  committees  who  had  supported  it  and  who  had 
reported  it,  and  who  knew  its  merits,  and  the  men  who  had 
voted  for  it  in  either  House  of  Congress,  could  not  well 


stultify  themselves  by  changing  their  votes,  although  some 
of  them  did.  I  was  situated  very  fortunately  in  that  re- 
spect. I  had  been  absent  on  a  visit  to  Massachusetts  when 
the  bill  passed.  So  I  was  not  on  record  for  it.  I  had  given 
it  no  great  attention.  The  special  duties  which  had  been  as- 
signed to  me  related  to  other  subjects.  So  when  the  meas- 
ure came  up  in  the  Senate  I  had  only  an  opinion  founded 
on  my  general  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  the  country  and 
the  public  policy,  that  it  was  all  right.  My  reelection  was 
coming  on.  I  was  to  have  a  serious  contest,  if  I  were  a  can- 
didate, with  the  supporters  of  General  Butler,  then  very 
powerful  in  the  State.  He,  in  fact,  was  elected  Governor  in 
the  election  then  approaching.  My  first  thoughts  were  that 
I  was  fortunate  to  have  escaped  this  rock.  But  when  the 
vote  came  on  I  said  to  myself :  ' '  This  measure  is  right.  Is 
my  father's  son  to  sneak  home  to  Massachusetts,  having 
voted  against  a  bill  that  is  clearly  righteous  and  just,  be- 
cause he  is  afraid  of  public  sentiment?"  Senator  McMillan, 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  who  had  charge  of  the  bill, 
just  before  my  name  was  called,  asked  me  how  I  meant  to 
vote.  I  told  him  I  should  vote  for  the  bill,  because  I  be- 
lieved it  to  be  right,  but  that  it  would  lose  me  the  support 
of  every  newspaper  in  Massachusetts  that  had  been  friendly 
to  me  before.  I  voted  accordingly.  The  vote  was  met  by 
a  storm  of  indignation  from  one  end  of  Massachusetts  to 
the  other,  in  which  every  Republican  newspaper  in  the 
State,  so  far  as  I  know,  united.  The  Springfield  Republi- 
can and  the  Boston  Herald,  as  will  well  be  believed,  were 
in  glory.  The  conduct  of  no  pick-pocket  or  bank  robber 
could  have  been  held  up  to  public  indignation  and  contempt 
in  severer  language  than  the  supporters  of  that  bill.  A 
classmate  of  mine,  an  eminent  man  of  letters,  a  gentleman 
of  great  personal  worth,  addressed  a  young  ladies'  school, 
or  some  similar  body  in  Western  Massachusetts,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  decay  of  public  virtue  as  exemplified  by  me.  He 
declared  that  I  had  separated  myself  from  the  best  elements 
in  the  State. 

The  measure  was  passed  over  the  President's  veto.    But 
it  cost  the  Republican  Party  its  majority  in  the  House  of 


Eepresentatives.  A  large  number  of  the  members  of  the 
House  who  had  voted  for  it  lost  their  seats.  If  the  question 
of  my  reelection  had  come  on  within  a  few  weeks  thereafter, 
I  doubt  whether  I  should  have  got  forty  votes  in  the  whole 
Legislature.  If  I  had  flinched  or  apologized,  I  should  have 
been  destroyed.  But  I  stood  to  my  guns.  I  wrote  a  letter 
to  the  people  of  Massachusetts  in  which  I  took  up  case  by 
case  each  provision  of  the  bill,  and  showed  how  important 
it  was  for  the  interest  of  commerce  between  the  States,  or 
with  foreign  countries,  and  how  well  it  justified  the  moder- 
ate expenditure.  I  pointed  out  that  the  bill  had  been,  in 
proportion  to  the  resources  of  the  Government,  less  in 
amount  than  those  John  Quincy  Adams  and  Daniel  Webster 
had  formerly  advocated ;  that  Mr.  Webster,  with  the  single 
exception  of  his  service  for  preserving  the  Union,  -prided 
himself  on  his  support  of  this  policy  of  public  improve- 
ment more  than  on  anything  else  in  his  life,  and  had  made 
more  speeches  on  that  subject  than  on  any  other.  Mr. 
Adams  claimed  to  be  the  author  of  the  policy  of  internal 
improvements.  So  that  it  was  a  Massachusetts  policy,  and 
a  Massachusetts  doctrine.  I  asked  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts to  consider  whether  they  could  reasonably  expect 
to  get  their  living  by  manufacture,  to  which  nearly  the  whole 
State  was  devoted,  bringing  their  raw  material  and  their 
fuel  and  their  iron  and  coal  and  cotton  and  wool  from  across 
the  continent,  and  then  carrying  the  manufactured  article 
back  again  to  be  sold  at  the  very  places  where  the  material 
came  from,  in  competition  with  States  like  Pennsylvania 
and  New  York  and  Ohio  and  Indiana,  unless  the  cost  of 
transportation  was,  so  far  as  possible,  annihilated.  I  con- 
cluded by  saying  that  I  knew  they  would  not  come  to  my 
way  of  thinking  that  afternoon  or  that  week,  but  that  they 
were  sure  to  come  to  it  in  the  end.  With  very  few  excep- 
tions the  letter  did  not  change  the  course  of  the  newspapers, 
or  of  the  leading  men  who  had  zealously  committed  them- 
selves to  another  doctrine.  But  it  convinced  the  people, 
and  I  believe  it  had  a  very  great  effect  throughout  the 
country,  and  was  the  means  of  saving  the  policy  of  internal 
improvements  from  destruction. 


Mr.  Clapp,  of  the  Boston  Journal,  witli  a  manliness  that 
did  him  infinite  credit,  declared  publicly  in  its  columns  that 
he  had  been  all  wrong,  and  that  I  was  right.  The  Worcester 
Spy,  edited  by  my  dear  friend  and  near  kinsman,  Evarts 
Greene,  had  with  the  rest  of  the  press  attacked  my  vote. 
Mr.  Greene  himself  was  absent  at  the  time,  so  the  paper  was 
then  in  charge  of  an  associate.  "When  Mr.  Greene  returned 
I  asked  him  to  spend  an  afternoon  at  my  house.  That  was 
before  my  letter  came  out.  I  had  sent  to  Washington  for 
all  the  engineers'  reports  and  other  documents  showing  the 
necessity  of  every  item  of  the  bill.  Mr.  Greene  made  a 
careful  study  of  the  bill  and  agreed  with  me. 

The  Boston  Herald  also  obtained  all  the  material  from 
Washington  and  sent  it  to  a  very  able  gentleman  who, 
though  not  taking  any  part  in  the  ordinary  conduct  of  the 
Herald,  was  called  upon  for  services  requiring  special 
ability  and  investigation.  They  asked  him  to  answer  my 
letter.  He  spent  five  days  in  studying  the  matter,  and  then 
wrote  to  the  managing  editor  of  the  paper  that  Mr.  Hoar 
was  entirely  right,  and  that  he  should  not  write  the  article 
desired.  The  Herald,  however,  did  not  abandon  its  posi- 
tion. It  kept  up  the  war.  But  I  ought  to  say  it  so  far 
modified  its  action  that  it  supported  me  for  reelection  the 
next  winter. 

The  Springfield  Republican  saw  and  seized  its  opportu- 
nity. It  attacked  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill  savagely.  It 
said :  ' '  Mr.  Hoar  is  a  candidate  for  reelection  and  has  dealt 
himself  a  very  severe  blow.  The  Commonwealth  was  pre- 
pared to  honor  Messrs.  Crapo  and  Hoar  anew.  To-day  it 
pauses,  frowns  and  refiects."  So  it  kept  up  the  attack.  It 
had  previously  advocated  the  selection  of  Mr.  Crapo  as  can- 
didate for  Governor.  It  bitterly  denounced  me.  Mr.  Crapo 
had  himself  voted  for  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill.  It  could 
not  consistently  maintain  its  bitter  opposition  to  me,  be- 
cause of  my  vote,  while  supporting  Mr.  Crapo.  So  it  de- 
clared it  could  no  longer  support  him. 

When  the  State  Convention  came  the  feeling  was  still 
strong,  though  somewhat  abated.  I  had  been  asked  by  the 
Committee,  a  good  while  before,  to  preside  at  the  Conven- 


tion.  TMs  I  did.  I  was  received  rather  coldly  when  I  went 
forward.  But  I  made  no  apologies.  I  began  my  speech  by 
saying:  "It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  meet  this  assembly 
of  the  representatives  of  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts. 
I  have  seen  these  faces  before.  They  are  faces  into  which 
I  am  neither  afraid  nor  ashamed  to  look."  The  assembly 
hesitated  a  little  between  indignation  at  the  tone  of  defiance, 
and  approval  of  a  man's  standing  by  his  convictions.  The 
latter  feeling  predominated,  and  they  broke  out  into  ap- 
plause. But  the  resolutions  which  the  Committee  reported 
contained  a  mild  but  veiled  reproof  of  my  action. 

Mr.  Crapo  was  defeated  in  the  Convention.  I  have  no 
doubt  he  would  have  been  nominated  for  Governor,  but  for 
his  vote  for  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill.  His  successful  com- 
petitor, Mr.  Bishop,  was  a  gentleman  of  great  personal 
worth,  highly  esteemed  throughout  the  Commonwealth,  and 
of  experience  in  State  administration.  But  it  was  thought 
that  his  nomination  had  been  secured  by  very  active  politi- 
cal management,  concerted  at  the  State  House,  and  that  the 
nomination  did  not  fairly  represent  the  desire  of  the  people 
of  the  Commonwealth.  Whatever  truth  there  may  have 
been  in  this,  I  am  very  sure  that  Mr.  Crapo 's  defeat  could 
not  have  been  compassed  but  for  his  vote  for  the  River  and 
Harbor  Bill.  The  result  of  the  above  feeling,  however,  was 
that  the  Republican  campaign  was  conducted  without  much 
heart,  and  General  Butler  was  elected  Governor. 

When  the  election  of  Senator  came  in  the  following 
winter,  I  was  opposed  by  what  remained  of  the  feeling 
against  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill.  My  principal  Republi- 
can competitors  were  Mr.  Crapo,  whose  friends  rightly 
thought  he  had  been  treated  with  great  injustice ;  and  Gov- 
ernor Long,  a  great  public  favorite,  who  had  just  ended  a 
brilliant  and  most  acceptable  term  of  service  as  Governor. 
Governor  Long  had  presided  at  a  public  meeting  where 
President  Arthur  had  been  received  during  the  summer,  and 
had  assured  him  that  his  action  had  the  hearty  approval  and 
support  of  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth.  I  had,  of 
course,  no  right  to  find  the  least  fault  with  the  supporters 
of  Governor  Long.    He  would  have  been  in  every  way  a 


most  acceptable  and  useful  Senator.  I  ought  to  say  that, 
as  I  understood  it,  he  hardly  assumed  the  attitude  of  a  can- 
didate for  the  place,  and  declared  in  a  public  letter  or  speech 
that  he  thought  I  ought  to  be  reelected.  So,  after  a  some- 
what earnest  struggle  I  was  again  chosen. 

One  curious  incident  happened  during  the  election.  The 
morning  after  the  result  was  declared,  a  story  appeared  in 
the  papers  that  Mr.  Crapo's  supporters  had  been  led  to 
come  over  to  me  by  the  statement  that  one  of  them  had  re- 
ceived a  telegram  from  him  withdrawing  his  name,  and 
advising  that  course.  The  correspondent  of  one  of  the 
papers  called  upon  Mr.  Crapo,  who  answered  him  that  he 
had  never  sent  any  such  telegram  to  Boston.  So  it  was 
alleged  that  somebody  who  favored  me  had  brought  about 
the  result  by  this  false  statement.  A  newspaper  corre- 
spondent called  on  me  in  Washington,  and  asked  me  about 
the  story.  I  told  him  that  I  had  not  heard  of  the  story,  but 
that  if  it  turned  out  to  be  true  I,  of  course,  would  instantly 
decline  the  office.  A  full  investigation  was  made  of  the 
matter,  and  it  turned  out  that  Mr.  Crapo  had  sent  such  a 
telegram  to  a  member  of  the  Legislature  in  New  Bedford, 
who  had  taken  it  to  Boston  and  made  it  known. 

The  next  winter,  at  my  suggestion,  a  resolution  was 
passed  calling  upon  the  Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Lincoln,  to 
specify  with  items  in  the  Eiver  and  Harbor  Bill  of  the  pre- 
vious winter  were  not,  in  his  opinion,  advisable,  or  did  not 
tend  to  promote  international  or  interstate  commerce.  He 
replied  specifying  a  very  few  items  only,  amounting  alto- 
gether to  a  very  few  thousand  dollars.  This  reply  was  made 
by  the  Secretary  of  War,  as  he  told  me  in  private  afterward, 
by  the  express  direction  of  the  President,  and  after  consulta- 
tion with  him.  That  ended  the  foolish  outcry  against  the 
great  policy  of  internal  improvement,  which  has  helped  to 
make  possible  the  marvels  of  our  domestic  commerce,  one 
of  the  most  wonderful  creations  of  human  history.  The 
statistics  of  its  vast  extent,  greater  now,  I  think,  than  all 
the  foreign  commerce  of  the  world  put  together,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  never  can  be  precisely  ascertained.  It 
is  not  only  wonderful  in  its  amount,  but  in  its  origin,  its 


resources,  and  in  its  whole  conduct.  All  its  instrumentali- 
ties are  American.  It  is  American  at  both  ends,  and 
throughout  all  the  way.  This  last  year  a  bill  providing  for 
an  expenditure  of  sixty  millions,  nearly  four  times  the 
amount  of  that  which  President  Arthur,  and  the  newspapers 
that  supported  him,  thought  so  extravagant,  passed  Con- 
gress without  a  murmur  of  objection,  and  if  I  mistake  not, 
without  a  dissenting  vote. 

I  should  like  to  put  on  record  one  instance  of  the  gen- 
erosity and  affection  of  Mr.  Dawes.  He  had  not  voted  when 
his  name  was  called,  expecting  to  vote  at  the  end  of  the  roll- 
call.  He  meant  to  vote  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  over 
the  veto.  But  when  he  heard  my  vote  for  it,  he  saw  that  I 
was  bringing  down  on  my  head  a  storm  of  popular  indigna- 
tion, and  made  up  his  mind  that  he  would  not  throw  the 
weight  of  his  example  on  the  side  against  me.  So,  con- 
trary to  his  opinion  of  the  merits  of  the  bill,  he  came  to  my 
side,  and  voted  with  me. 

I  suppose  a  good  many  moralists  will  think  that  it  is  a 
very  wicked  thing  indeed  for  a  man  to  vote  against  his  con- 
victions on  a  grave  public  question,  from  a  motive  like  this, 
of  personal  friendship.  But  I  think  on  the  whole  I  like 
better  the  people,  who  will  love  Mr.  Dawes  for  such  an  act, 
than  those  who  will  condemn  him.  I  would  not,  probably, 
put  what  I  am  about  to  say  in  an  address  to  a  Sunday- 
school,  or  into  a  sermon  to  the  inmates  of  a  jail  or  house 
of  correction.  I  cannot,  perhaps,  defend  it  by  reason.  But 
somehow  or  other,  I  am  strongly  tempted  to  say  there  are 
occasions  in  life  where  the  meanest  thing  a  man  can  do  is 
to  do  perfectly  right.  But  I  do  not  say  it.  It  would  be  better 
to  say  that  there  are  occasions  when  the  instinct  is  a  better 
guide  than  the  reason.  At  any  rate,  I  do  not  believe  the  re- 
cording angel  made  any  trouble  for  Mr.  Dawes  for  that  vote. 



Much  of  what  I  have  said  in  the  preceding  chapter  is, 
in  substance,  applicable  to  my  vote  on  another  matter 
in  which  I  had  been  compelled  to  take  an  attitude  in  op- 
position to  a  large  majority  of  my  own  party  and  to  the 
temporary  judgment  of  my  countrymen:  that  is  the  pro- 
posed legislation  in  violation  of  the  Treaty  with  China ;  the 
subsequent  Treaty  modifying  that  negotiated  in  1868  by  Mr. 
Seward  on  our  part,  and  Mr.  Burlingame  for  China;  and 
the  laws  which  have  been  enacted  since,  upon  the  subject 
of  Chinese  immigration.  I  had  the  high  honor  of  being 
hung  in  effigy  in  Nevada  by  reason  of  the  report  that  I  had 
opposed,  in  secret  Session  of  the  Senate,  the  Treaty  of  1880. 
My  honored  colleague,  Mr.  Dawes,  and  I  were  entirely 
agreed  in  the  matter.  Mr.  Dawes  complained  good- 
naturedly  to  Senator  Jones,  of  Nevada,  that  he  had  been 
neglected  when  the  Nevada  peopled  had  singled  me  out  for 
that  sole  honor,  to  which  Mr.  Jones,  with  equal  good-nature, 
replied  that  if  Mr.  Dawes  desired,  he  would  have  measures 
taken  to  correct  the  error,  which  had  inadvertently  been 

In  1868  the  late  Anson  Burlingame,  an  old  friend  of  mine 
and  a  man  highly  esteemed  in  Massachusetts,  who  had  been 
sent  to  China  as  the  American  Minister  in  Mr.  Lincoln's 
time,  was  appointed  by  the  Chinese  Government  its  Am- 
bassador, or  Envoy,  to  negotiate  treaties  with  the  United 
States  and  several  European  powers.  He  made  a  journey 
through  this  country  and  Europe,  travelling  with  Oriental 
magnificence,  in  a  state  which  he  was  well  calculated  to 
maintain  and  adorn.  It  was  just  after  we  had  put  down  the 
Eebellion,  abolished  slavery,  and  made  of  every  slave  a 



freeman  and  of  every  freeman  a  citizen.  The  hearts  of  the 
people  were  full  of  the  great  doctrines  of  liberty  which 
Jefferson  and  the  Fathers  of  our  country  had  learned  from 
Milton  and  the  statesmen  of  the  English  Commonwealth. 

The  Chinese  Treaty  was  concluded  on  the  28th  of  July, 
1868,  between  Mr.  Seward  and  Mr.  Burlingame  and  his  asso- 
ciate Plenipotentiaries  Chih-Kang  and  Sun  Chia-Ku.  It 
contained  the  following  clause : 

"The  United  States  of  America  and  the  Emperor  of 
China  cordially  recognize  the  inherent  and  inalienable  right 
of  man  to  change  his  home  and  allegiance,  and  also  the 
mutual  advantage  of  free  migration  and  emigration  of  their 
citizens  and  subjects  respectively  from  one  country  to  the 
other  for  purposes  of  curiosity,  of  trade,  or  as  permanent 
residents. ' ' 

Article  VII.  of  the  same  Treaty  stipulated  that  citizens  of 
each  power  should  enjoy  all  the  privileges  of  the  public  edu- 
cational institutions  under  the  control  of  the  government  of 
the  other,  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  the  subjects  of  the  most 
favored  nation,  and  that  the  citizens  of  each  might,  them- 
selves, establish  schools  in  the  other's  country.  Congress 
passed  an  Act,  July  27,  1868,  to  a  like  effect,  to  which  the 
following  is  the  preamble  to  the  first  section : 

"Whereas  the  right  of  expatriation  is  a  natural  and  in- 
herent right  of  all  people,  indispensable  to  the  enjoyment 
of  the  rights  of  life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness ; 
and  whereas  in  the  recognition  of  this  principle  this  gov- 
ernment has  freely  received  emigrants  from  all  nations,  and 
invested  them  with  the  rights  of  citizenship;  and  whereas 
it  is  claimed  that  such  American  citizens,  with  their  de- 
scendants, are  subjects  of  foreign  states,  owing  allegiance 
to  the  governments  thereof ;  and  whereas  it  is  necessary  to 
the  maintenance  of  public  peace  that  this  claim  of  foreign 
allegiance  should  be  promptly  and  finally  disavowed: 
Therefore,"  etc. 

Thereafter,  in  the  first  term  of  the  Administration  of 
President  Hayes,  in  the  December  Session  of  1878,  a  bill 


was  introduced  which,  almost  defiantly,  as  it  seemed  to  me, 
violated  the  faith  of  the  country  pledged  by  the  Burlingame 
Treaty.  There  had  been  no  attempt  to  induce  China  to 
modify  that  Treaty.  I  resisted  its  passage  as  well  as  I 
could.  But  my  objection  had  little  effect  in  the  excited 
condition  of  public  sentiment.  The  people  of  the  Pacific 
coast  were,  not  unnaturally,  excited  and  alarmed  by  the  im- 
portation into  their  principal  cities  of  Chinese  laborers, 
fearing,  I  think  without  much  reason,  that  American  labor- 
ing men  could  not  maintain  themselves  in  the  competition 
with  this  thrifty  and  industrious  race  who  lived  on  food 
that  no  American  could  tolerate,  and  who  had  no  families 
to  support,  and  who  crowded  together,  like  sardines  in  a 
box,  in  close  and  unhealthy  sleeping  apartments.  I  sup- 
posed that  the  labor  of  this  inferior  class  would  raise  the 
condition  of  better  and  more  intelligent  laborers.  That, 
however,  was  a  fairly  disputable  question.  But  I  could  not 
consent  to  striking  at  men,  as  I  have  just  said,  because  of 
their  occupation.  This  bill  was  vetoed  by  President  Hayes, 
who  put  his  objections  solely  upon  the  ground  that  the  bill 
was  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  the  existing  Treaty.  The 
House,  by  a  vote  of  138  yeas  to  116  nays,  refused  to  pass 
the  bill  over  the  veto. 

But  in  1880  a  Treaty  was  negotiated,  and  approved  by 
the  Senate  and  ratified  July  19,  1881,  which  relieved  the 
United  States  from  the  .  provisions  of  the  Burlingame 
Treaty,  and  permitted  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers. 
I  made  a  very  earnest  speech,  during  a  debate  on  this  Treaty 
in  Executive  Session  of  the  Senate,  in  opposition  to  it. 
The  Senate  did  me  the  honor,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Dawes, 
of  a  vote  authorizing  my  speech  to  be  published,  notwith- 
standing the  rule  of  secrecy.  But  one  Senator  from  the 
Pacific  coast  complained,  I  think  with  some  reason,  that  I 
was  permitted  to  publish  my  argument  on  one  side  when  he 
not  only  was  not  permitted  to  publish  his  on  the  other,  but 
his  constituents  had  no  means  of  knowing  that  he  had 
defended  their  views  or  made  proper  answer  to  mine.  So 
I  thought  it  hardly  fair  to  make  my  speech  public,  and  it 
was  not  done. 


Later,  in  the  spring  of  1882,  a  bill  was  passed  to  carry 
into  effect  tlie  Treaty  of  1880.  That  I  resisted  as  best  I 
could.  In  opposition  to  this  bill  I  made  an  earnest  speech 
showing  it  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  doctrines  on  which  our 
fathers  founded  the  Republic;  with  the  principles  of  the 
Constitutions  of  nearly  all  the  States,  including  that  of  Cali- 
fornia, and  with  the  declarations  of  leading  statesmen  down 
to  the  year  1868.  I  showed  also  that  the  Chinese  race  had 
shown  examples  of  the  highest  qualities  of  manhood,  of 
intelligence,  probity  and  industry.  I  protested  against  a 
compact  between  the  two  greatest  nations  of  the  Pacific, 
just  as  we  were  about  to  assert  our  great  influence  there, 
which  should  place  in  the  public  law  of  the  world,  and  in 
the  jurisprudence  of  America,  the  principle  that  it  is  fitting 
that  there  should  be  hereafter  a  distinction  in  the  treat- 
ment of  men  by  governments  and  in  the  recognition  of  their 
right  to  the  pursuit  of  happiness  by  a  peaceful  change  of 
their  homes,  based,  not  on  conduct,  not  on  character,  but 
upon  race  and  occupation;  by  asserting  that  you  might 
justly  deny  to  the  Chinese  what  you  might  not  justly  deny 
to  the  Irish,  that  you  might  justly  deny  to  the  laborer  what 
you  might  not  deny  to  the  idler.  I  pointed  out  that  this 
declaration  was  extorted  from  unwilling  China  by  the  de- 
mand of  America;  and  that  laborers  were  henceforth  to  be 
classed,  in  the  enumeration  of  American  public  law,  with 
paupers,  lazzaroni,  harlots,  and  persons  afflicted  with  pesti- 
lential diseases.     I  ended  what  I  had  to  say  as  follows : 

"Humanity,  capable  of  infinite  depths  of  degradation,  is 
also  capable  of  infinite  heights  of  excellence.  The  Chinese, 
like  all  other  races,  has  given  us  its  examples  of  both.  To 
rescue  humanity  from  this  degradation  is,  we  are  taught  to 
believe,  the  great  object  of  God's  moral  government  on 
earth.  It  is  not  by  injustice,  exclusion,  caste,  but  by  rever- 
ence for  the  individual  soul  that  we  can  aid  in  this  con- 
summation. It  is  not  by  Chinese  policies  that  China  is  to 
be  civilized.  I  believe  that  the  immortal  truths  of  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  came  from  the  same  source  with 
the  Golden  Eule  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.    We  can 


trust  Him  who  promulgated  these  laws  to  keep  the  country- 
safe  that  obeys  them.  The  laws  of  the  universe  have  their 
own  sanction.  They  will  not  fail.  The  power  that  causes 
the  compass  to  point  to  the  north,  that  dismisses  the  star  on 
its  pathway  through  the  sMes,  promising  that  in  a  thousand 
years  it  shall  return  again  true  to  its  hour  and  keeps  His 
word,  will  vindicate  His  own  moral  law.  As  surely  as  the 
path  on  which  our  fathers  entered  a  hundred  years  ago  led 
to  safety,  to  strength,  to  glory,  so  surely  will  the  path  on 
which  we  now  propose  to  enter  bring  us  to  shame,  to  weak- 
ness, and  to  peril." 

The  Statute  then  enacted,  expired  by  its  own  limitation 
twenty  years  afterward.  Meantime  the  prejudice  against 
Chinese  labor  had  modified  somewhat.  The  public  had 
become  somewhat  more  considerate  of  their  rights  and,  at 
any  rate,  there  was  a  desire  to  maintain  some  show  of 
decency  in  legislating  in  the  matter.  So  a  more  moderate 
Statute  was  enacted  in  1902.  I  was  the  only  person  who 
voted  against  it  in  either  House.  It  was,  of  course,  clear 
that  resistance  was  useless.  It  was  not  worth  while,  it 
seemed  to  me,  to  undertake  to  express  my  objections  at 
length.  I  contented  myself  with  the  following  brief  remon- 
strance : 

"Mr.  President,  I  think  this  bill  and  this  debate  indicate 
a  great  progress  in  sentiment.  The  sentiment  of  the  coun- 
try has  passed,  certainly  so  far  as  it  is  represented  by  a 
majority  of  the  Senate,  the  stage,  if  it  ever  was  in  it,  of  a 
reckless  seeking  to  accomplish  the  result  of  Chinese  ex- 
clusion without  regard  to  constitutional  restraints,  treaty 
obligations,  or  moral  duties.  There  was  in  some  quarters, 
as  it  seemed  to  me,  in  olden  times,  a  disregard  of  all  these 
restraints,  certainly  in  the  press,  certainly  in  the  harangues 
which  were  made  to  excited  crowds  in  various  parts  of  the 
country.  Among  others  I  can  remember  a  visit  of  the 
apostle  of  Chinese  exclusion  to  Boston  Common  which  indi- 
cated that  spirit. 


"Now,  that  has  gone  largely,  and  the  Senate  has  dis- 
cussed this  question  with  a  temperate  desire  on  the  part 
of  all  classes  and  all  Senators,  whatever  ways  of  thinking 
they  have,  to  do  what  seemed  to  them  for  the  benefit  of 
labor,  the  quality  of  the  citizenship  of  this  country,  in  a 
moderate  and  constitutional  fashion. 

"But  I  cannot  agree  with  the  principle  on  which  this 
legislation  or  any  legislation  on  the  subject  which  we  have 
had  in  the  country  since  1870  rests.  I  feel  bound  to  enter 
a  protest.  I  believe  that  everything  in  the  way  of  Chinese 
exclusion  can  be  accomplished  by  reasonable,  practical  and 
wise  measures  which  will  not  involve  the  principle  of  strik- 
ing at  labor,  and  will  not  involve  the  principle  of  striking 
at  any  class  of  human  beings  merely  because  of  race,  with- 
out regard  to  the  personal  and  individual  worth  of  the  man 
struck  at.  I  hold  that  every  human  soul  has  its  rights, 
dependent  upon  its  individual  personal  worth  and  not  de- 
pendent upon  color  or  race,  and  that  all  races,  all  colors,  all 
nationalities  contain  persons  entitled  to  be  recognized 
everywhere  they  go  on  the  face  of  the  earth  as  the  equals 
of  every  other  man." 

I  do  not  think  any  man  ever  hated  more  than  I  have 
hated  the  affectation  or  the  reality  of  singularity.  I  know 
very  well  that  the  American  people  mean  to  do  right,  and 
I  believe  with  all  my  heart  that  the  men  and  the  party  with 
whom  I  have  acted  for  fifty  years  mean  to  do  right.  I 
believe  the  judgment  of  both  far  better  than  my  own.  But 
every  man's  conscience  is  given  to  him  as  the  lamp  for  his 
path.     He  cannot  walk  by  another  light. 

It  is  also  true  that  the  great  political  principles  which 
have  been  in  issue  for  the  last  thirty  years,  have  been,  in 
general,  those  that  have  been  debated  for  centuries,  and 
which  cannot  be  settled  by  a  single  vote,  in  a  legislative 
body,  by  the  result  of  a  single  election,  or  even  by  the  opin- 
ion of  a  single  generation.  In  nearly  every  one  of  what  I 
am  sorry  to  say  are  the  numerous  instances  where  I  have 
been  compelled  to  act  upon  my  judgment  against  that  of  my 
own  party,  and  even  against  that  of  the  majority  of  my  own 


countrymen,  the  people  have  subsequently  come  around  to 
my  way  of  thinking,  and  in  all  of  them,  I  believe,  I  have 
had  on  my  side  the  opinion  of  the  great  men  of  the  great 
generations  of  the  past.  Certainly  the  Chinese  Exclusion 
Bill  and  the  Chinese  Treaty;  the  Spanish  Treaty  and  the 
War  against  the  Philippine  people  could  not  have  lived  an 
hour  before  the  indignation  of  the  American  people  at  any 
time  from  the  beginning  down  to  the  time  when,  in  1876, 
they  celebrated  the  centennial  of  their  Independence. 



The  Treaty  of  Washington,  creditable  to  all  who  en- 
gaged in  it,  not  to  be  judged  by  its  details,  but  by  its  great 
effect  in  securing  peace  to  the  world,  saved  Great  Britain 
from  a  war  with  us,  in  which  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the 
nations  of  Europe  who  hated  her  would  have  come  to  take 
part  on  our  side.  But  it  saved  us  from  the  greater  danger 
of  having  the  war  spirit  renewed  and  intensified  by  this 
gigantic  struggle,  from  an  international  hatred  which  would 
not  have  cooled  again  for  a  century;  or,  if  we  did  not 
declare  war,  from  taking  the  ignoble  attitude  of  a  great  and 
free  people  lying  in  wait  for  an  opportunity  to  revenge 

It  was  the  purpose  of  that  Treaty  to  remove  every  cause 
of  quarrel.  One  constant  cause  of  quarrel,  for  many  years, 
had  been  the  exercise  of  our  right  to  fish  on  the  shores 
of  Newfoundland.  In  the  Treaty  it  was  agreed  that  the 
United  States  should  have,  in  addition  to  her  existing  rights 
for  ten  years,  and  for  such  further  time  as  the  parties 
should  agree,  the  right  to  take  fish  on  the  sea  coast  of  the 
British  Provinces  north  of  us,  with  permission  to  land  for 
the  purpose  of  drying  nets  and  curing  fish,  and  that  we 
were  to  pay  for  the  privilege  a  sum  to  be  fixed  by  arbitra- 
tors. Two  of  these  arbitrators  were  to  be  appointed  by 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain ;  the  other,  who  would 
serve  as  an  umpire,  to  be  agreed  upon  by  the  two  powers, 
or,  if  not  agreed  upon  within  a  certain  time,  then  to  be 
appointed  by  the  Emperor  of  Austria.  Great  Britain  in- 
sisted upon  having  the  Belgian  Minister  to  the  United  States 
for  the  third  arbitrator,  and  refused  to  name  or  suggest  or 
agree  to  any  other  person.  So  the  time  expired.  There- 
upon the  Belgian  Minister,  Mr.  Delfosse,  was  selected  by 



the  Emperor  of  Austria.  Mr.  Delfosse's  own  fortune  in 
public  life  depended  upon  his  Sovereign's  favor.  We  had 
already  notified  Great  Britain  that,  if  the  Belgian  Minister 
were  selected,  he  would  probably  deem  himself  disqualified 
by  reason  of  the  peculiar  connection  of  his  Government 
with  that  of  Great  Britain.  When  the  Treaty  was  nego- 
tiated. Earl  de  Grey,  Chairman  of  the  Commissioners,  said, 
speaking  of  the  Government  to  whom  the  matter  might  be 
referred:  "I  do  not  name  Belgium,  because  Great  Britain 
has  treaty  arrangements  with  that  Government  which  might 
be  supposed  to  incapacitate  it."  Belgium,  as  was  noto- 
rious, was  dependent  upon  Great  Britain  to  maintain  its 
political  existence  against  the  ambitions  of  France  and 
Germany.  Mr.  Delfosse's  sovereign  was  the  son  of  the 
brother  of  Queen  Victoria's  mother  and  Prince  Albert's 
father,  and  was,  himself,  brother  of  Carlotta,  wife  of  Maxi- 
milian, whom  we  had  lately  compelled  France  to  abandon 
to  his  fate. 

The  referee  awarded  that  we  should  make  a  payment  to 
Great  Britain  for  this  fishery  privilege  of  five  million  five 
hundred  thousand  dollars.  We  never  valued  them  at  all. 
We  abandoned  them  at  the  end  of  ten  years.  It  would 
have  been  much  better  to  leave  the  matter  to  Great 
Britain  herself.  If  she  had  been  put  upon  honor  she  would 
not  have  made  such  an  award.  No  English  Judge  who 
valued  his  reputation  would  have  suggested  such  a  thing, 
as  it  seemed  to  us. 

I  would  rather  the  United  States  should  occupy  the  posi- 
tion of  paying  that  award,  after  calling  the  attention  of 
England  to  its  injustice  and  wrong,  than  to  occupy  the  posi- 
tion of  England  when  she  pocketed  the  money.  A  war  with 
England  would  have  been  a  grievous  thing  to  her  working- 
men  who  stood  by  us  in  our  hour  of  peril,  and  to  all  that 
class  of  Englishmen  whom  we  loved,  and  who  loved  us. 
Such  a  war  would  have  been  a  war  between  the  only  two 
great  English-speaking  nations  of  the  world,  and  the  two 
nations  whose  policy,  under  methods  largely  similar, 
though  somewhat  different,  were  determined  by  the  public 
opinion  of  their  people. 


If  however  our  closer  and  friendlier  relations  witli  Eng- 
land are  to  result  in  our  adopting  her  social  manners,  her 
deference  to  rank  and  wealth,  and  of  adopting  her  ideas  of 
empire  and  the  method  of  treating  small  and  weak  nations 
by  great  and  strong  ones,  it  would  be  better  that  we  had  kept 
aloof,  and  that  the  old  jealousy  and  dislike  engendered  by 
two  wars  had  continued. 

A  very  interesting  question  was  settled  during  the  Ad- 
ministration of  President  Hayes  as  to  the  disposition  of 
the  $15,500,000  recovered  from  Great  Britain  by  the  award 
of  the  tribunal  of  Geneva  for  the  violation  of  the  obligations 
of  neutrality  during  the  Civil  War.  Great  Britain,  after 
what  we  had  claimed  was  full  notice  of  what  was  going  on, 
permitted  certain  war  vessels  to  be  constructed  in  England 
for  the  Confederate  Government.  She  permitted  those 
vessels  to  leave  her  ports  and,  by  a  preconcerted  arrange- 
ment, to  receive  their  armament,  also  procured  in  Great 
Britain.  She  turned  a  deaf,  an  almost  contemptuous  ear, 
to  the  remonstrances  of  Mr.  Adams,  our  Minister.  The 
Foreign  Office,  after  a  while,  informed  him  that  they  did 
not  wish  to  receive  any  more  representations  on  that  sub- 
ject. But,  as  the  War  went  on  and  the  naval  and  military 
strength  of  the  United  States  increased  and  became  more 
manifest.  Great  Britain  became  more  careful.  At  last  some 
Rebel  rams  were  built  by  the  Lairds,  ship-builders  of  Liver- 
pool. Mr.  Adams  procured  what  he  deemed  sufficient 
evidence  that  they  were  intended  for  the  Confederate  ser- 
vice, and  made  a  demand  on  Lord  Russell,  the  British  For- 
eign Minister,  that  they  be  detained.  To  this  Lord  Russell 
replied  that  he  had  submitted  the  matter  to  the  Law  officers 
of  her  Majesty's  Government,  and  they  could  see  no  reason 
for  interfering.  To  this  Mr.  Adams  instantly  replied  that 
he  received  the  communication  with  great  regret,  adding, 
"It  would  be  superfluous  in  me  to  point  out  to  your  Lord- 
ship that  this  is  war."  Lord  Russell  hastily  reconsidered 
his  opinion,  and  ordered  the  rams  to  be  stopped. 

He  afterward,  as  appears  in  his  biography  by  Spencer 
Walpole,  admitted  his  error  in  not  interfering  in  the  case 
of  the  vessels  that  had  gone  out  before.    But  the  mischief 



was  done.  The  terror  of  these  Confederate  vessels  had 
driven  our  commerce  from  the  sea,  or  had  compelled  our 
merchant  vessels  to  sail  under  foreign  flags,  and  had  enor- 
mously increased  the  rate  of  insurance  to  those  who  kept 
the  sea  under  our  flag. 

After  the  War  had  ended  a  demand  for  compensation  was 
earnestly  pressed  upon  Great  Britain.  A  demand  was 
made  to  refer  the  claims  to  arbitration,  and  a  Treaty  nego- 
tiated for  that  purpose  by  Keverdy  Johnson  under  Andrew 
Johnson's  Administration,  was  rejected  by  the  Senate,  on 
the  ground,  among  other  reasons,  that  the  element  of  chance 
entered  into  the  result. 

Thereafter,  in  General  Grant's  time,  a  Joint  High  Com- 
mission to  deal  with  this  controversy  was  agreed  upon  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  which  sat  in  Washington,  in  1871. 
The  Commissioners  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  were 
Hamilton  Pish,  Secretary  of  State ;  Eobert  C.  Schenck,  then 
our  Minister  to  England;  Samuel  Nelson,  Judge  of  the  Su- 
preme Court;  Ebenezer  Eockwood  Hoar,  lately  Attorney- 
General,  and  George  H.  Williams,  afterward  Attorney-Gen- 
eral. On  behalf  of  Great  Britain  there  were  Earl  de  Grey 
and  Eipon,  afterward  Marquis  of  Eipon;  Sir  Stafford  H. 
Northcote,  afterward  Earl  of  Idesleigh;  Edward  Thornton, 
then  the  British  Minister  here;  John  A.  MacDonald,  Pre- 
mier of  Canada,  and  Montague  Bernard,  Professor  of  Inter- 
national Law  at  Oxford.  The  two  countries  could  not,  in 
all  probability,  have  furnished  men  more  competent  for 
such  a  purpose.  They  agreed  upon  a  treaty.  The  rules 
by  which  neutral  governments  were  to  be  held  to  be 
bound  for  the  purposes  of  the  arbitration  were  agreed  on 
beforehand  in  the  Treaty  itself.  They  agreed  to  observe 
these  rules  between  themselves  in  the  future,  and  to  invite 
other  maritime  powers  to  accede  to  them.  The  Treaty  also 
contained  a  statement  that  Her  Britannic  Majesty  had  "au- 
thorized her  High  Commissioners  and  Plenipotentiaries  to 
express  in  a  friendly  spirit  the  regret  felt  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government  for  the  escape,  under  whatever  circumstances, 
of  the  Alabama  and  other  vessels  from  British  ports,  and 
for  the  depredations  committed  by  those  vessels."    I  am 


not  aware  that  a  like  apology  has  ever  been  made  by  Great 
Britain  during  her  history,  to  any  other  country.  There 
was  a  provision  also,  for  the  reference  of  some  other  mat- 
ters in  dispute  between  the  two  countries.  One  of  these 
related  to  the  fisheries— a  source  of  irritation  between  this 
country  and  the  British  possessions  north  of  us  ever  since 
the  Eevolution. 

I  will  not  undertake  to  tell  that  part  of  the  story  here. 
It  was  agreed  to  submit  the  questions  of  the  claims  growing 
out  of  the  escape  of  the  Eebel  cruisers  to  a  tribunal  which 
was  to  sit  at  Geneva.  Of  this,  one  member  was  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  each  of  the  parties,  and  the  others  by  certain 
designated  foreign  governments.  Our  Commissioner  was 
Charles  Francis  Adams,  who  had  borne  himself  so  wisely 
and  patiently  during  the  period  of  the  Civil  "War.  The 
English  Commissioner  was  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  Lord 
Chief  Justice  of  England.  The  United  States  was  repre- 
sented by  Caleb  Cushing,  William  M.  Evarts  and  Morrison 
Ei.  Waite,  afterward  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  as 

Adams  rarely  betrayed  any  deep  emotion  on  any  public 
occasion,  however  momentous.  But  it  must  have  been  hard 
for  him  to  conceal  the  thrill  of  triumph,  after  the  ignominy 
to  which  he  had  submitted  during  that  long  and  anxious 
time,  when  he  heard  the  tribunal  pronounce  its  judgment, 
condemning  Great  Britain  to  pay  $15,500,000  damages  for 
the  wrong-doing  against  which  he  had  so  earnestly  and 
vainly  protested.  Perhaps  the  feeling  of  his  grandfather 
when  he  signed  the  Treaty  of  Independence  in  1783  might 
alone  be  compared  to  it.  Yet  his  father,  John  Quincy 
Adams,  had  something  of  the  same  feeling  when,  at  the 
close  of  a  war  which  put  an  end  forever  to  the  impressment 
of  American  seamen,  and  made  the  sailor  in  his  ship  as  safe 
as  the  farmer  in  his  dwelling,  he  signed  the  Treaty  which 
secured  our  boundary  and  our  fisheries  as  they  had  been 
secured  by  his  father.*  John  Quincy  Adams  had  struck,  by 
the  direction  of  his  father,  in  1815,  a  seal  which  he  gave  to 

*  This  story  is  told  more  fully  at  page  147.  It  seems  appropriate  in 
both  places. 


his  son,  with  the  injunction  to  give  it  to  his,  bearing  the 
motto,  "Piscemur,  venemur,  ut  olim,"— We  keep  our  hunt- 
ing grounds  and  our  fishing  grounds  as  of  old.  I  doubt  if 
three  such  achievements,  by  three  successive  generations, 
can  be  found  in  the  annals  of  any  other  family  however 

The  $15,500,000  was  promptly  paid.  Then  came  the  ques- 
tion what  to  do  with  it.  There  was  no  doubt  anywhere, 
that  the  owners  of  vessels  or  cargoes  that  had  been  captured 
or  destroyed  by  the  cruisers  for  whose  departure  from 
British  ports  Great  Britain  was  in  fault,  were  entitled  to 
be  paid.  That,  however,  would  not  consume  the  fund.  The 
fund  had  been  paid  in  gold  coin  by  Great  Britain,  Septem- 
ber 9,  1873,  and  had  been  covered  into  the  Treasury  the 
same  day.  This  sum  was  invested  in  a  registered  bond  for 
the  amount,  of  the  five  per  cent,  loan  of  1881,  dated  Sep- 
tember 10,  1873,  inscribed,  "Hamilton  Fish,  Secretary  of 
State,  in  trust.  To  be  held  subject  to  the  future  disposition 
of  Congress,  etc."  This  sum  largely  exceeded  what  was 
necessary  to  make  good  the  principal  of  all  losses  directly 
resulting  from  the  damages  caused  by  the  insurgent  cruis- 
ers, above  what  had  already  been  reimbursed  from  insur- 
ance. These  claims  were  popularly  termed  the  "claims  for 
direct  damages." 

The  question  what  to  do  with  the  balance  was  the  subject 
of  great  dispute  throughout  the  country,  and  of  much  de- 
bate in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  Some  persons  claimed 
that  the  owners  directly  damaged  should  receive  interest. 
That  would  still  leave  a  large  part  of  the  fund  undisposed 
of.  It  was  insisted  that  the  remainder  belonged  to  the 
Government  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  people  who  had 
borne  the  burden  and  cost  of  the  war.  Others  claimed  that, 
as  nothing  but  direct  damages  were  lawfully  assessable,  the 
balance  should  be  paid  back  to  Great  Britain.  Still  others 
claimed  that  the  persons  who  had  suffered  indirectly  by 
the  loss  of  voyages,  the  increased  rates  of  insurance,  and 
the  breaking  up  of  business,  were  justly  entitled  to  the 
money.  Still  others,  perhaps  the  most  formidable  and  per- 
sistent of  all,  claimed  that  the  underwriters  who  had  paid 


insurance  on  vessels  or  cargoes  destroyed,  were  entitled 
to  the  money  on  the  familiar  principle  that  an  insurer  who 
pays  a  loss  is  subrogated  to  all  the  legal  and  equitable 
claims  of  the  party  insured. 

These  disputes  prevented  any  disposition  of  the  fund  by 
Congress  until  the  summer  of  1874. 

Judge  Hoar,  who  was  then  a  Member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  suggested  that  as  everybody  agreed  that 
the  claims  for  direct  damages  ought  to  be  paid,  that  it  was 
not  fair  that  they  should  be  kept  waiting  longer  in  order  to 
settle  the  dispute  about  the  rest  of  the  fund.  In  accordance 
with  his  suggestion  a  Court  was  provided  for  by  Act  of 
Congress,  whose  duty  it  was  to  receive  and  examine  all 
claims  directly  resulting  from  damages  caused  by  the  in- 
surgent cruisers.  They  were  directed,  however,  not  to 
allow  any  claim  where  the  party  injured  had  received  in- 
demnity from  any  insurance  company,  except  to  the  excess 
of  such  claim  above  the  indemnity.  They  were  further 
authorized  to  allow  interest  at  the  rate  of  four  per  cent. 
The  Court  performed  its  duty.  When  its  judgments  had 
been  paid  there  still  remained  a  large  balance.  The  ablest 
lawyers  in  the  Senate,  in  general,  pressed  the  claim  of  the 
insurance  companies  to  the  balance  of  the  fund,  including 
Mr.  Edmunds,  Judge  Davis,  Judge  Thurman  and  Mr.  Bay- 
ard. I  took  up  the  question  with  a  strong  leaning  for  the  in- 
surance companies.  I  was,  of  course,  impressed  by  the  well- 
known  principle  of  law  that  the  underwriter  who  had  paid 
for  property  destroyed  by  the  cause  against  which  he  had 
insured,  was  entitled  to  be  substituted  to  all  other  rights  or 
remedies  which  the  owner  may  have  for  reimbursement  of 
his  loss.  I  was  very  much  impressed  also  in  favor  of  the 
insurance  companies,  who  were  making  what  they  doubtless 
believed  an  honest  and  just  claim,  fortified  by  many  of  the 
best  legal  opinions  in  Congress  and  out  of  it,  by  the  char- 
acter of  the  attacks  made  on  them,  especially  by  General 
Butler.  These  attacks  appealed  to  the  lowest  passions  and 
prejudices.  It  was  said  that  the  companies  were  rich ;  that 
they  made  their  money  out  of  the  misfortunes  of  their  coun- 
trymen ;  that  they  were  trying  to  get  up  to  their  arm-pits  in 


the  National  Treasury,  and  that  they  employed  famous 
counsel.  If  there  be  anything  likely  to  induce  a  man  with 
legal  or  judicial  instincts  to  set  his  teeth  against  a  proposi- 
tion, it  is  that  style  of  argument. 

But  I  came  to  the  conclusion,  both  from  the  history  of 
the  proceedings  at  Geneva,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  sub- 
mission, that  the  claim  that  had  been  established  against 
Great  Britain  was  a  National  claim,  made  by  National  au- 
thority for  a  National  injury.  That  this  was  the  character 
of  the  claim  our  counsel  gave  express  notice  to  Great 
Britain  and  to  the  tribunal.  This  opinion  was  asserted  by 
Mr.  Adams,  one  of  the  arbitrators,  in  his  opinion,  and  by 
Mr.  Fish  in  his  instructions  to  the  counsel.  When  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  received  it,  it  seemed  to  me 
that  it  was  entitled  to  apply  it  in  its  high  discretion ;  and  to 
give  it  to  such  persons  entitled  to  its  protection  or  con- 
sideration as  it  should  see  fit.  I  made  a  careful  argument 
in  support  of  this  view.  I  thought,  accordingly,  that  the 
balance  of  the  fund,  after  compensating  all  persons,  not  yet 
paid,  for  claims  directly  resulting  from  damage  done  on  the 
high  seas  by  Confederate  cruisers,  and  the  class  of  insur- 
ance companies  above  mentioned,  should  be  paid  to  persons 
who  had  paid  premiums  for  war  risks  after  the  sailing  of 
any  Confederate  cruiser.  I  maintained  this  doctrine  as 
well  as  I  could  against  the  powerful  arguments  I  have 
named.  There  were  other  very  strong  arguments  on  the 
same  side,  and  I  had  the  gratification  of  being  assured  by 
several  Senators  that  my  presentation  of  the  case  had  con- 
vinced them.  Mr.  Blaine,  who  had,  himself,  earnestly  en- 
gaged in  the  debate,  said  that  he  thought  that  the  opinion 
of  the  majority  of  the  Senators  had  been  changed  by  my 



The  two  most  important  questions  of  the  construction  of 
the  Constitution  which  came  up  in  our  early  history  have 
been  finally  put  at  rest  in  our  day.  I  have  had  something 
to  do  with  disposing  of  both  of  them.  With  the  disposi- 
tion of  one  of  them  I  had  a  leading  part. 

The  first  of  these  questions  was  whether  in  executing  the 
powers  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Constitution,  Congress 
must  confine  itself  to  such  means  and  instrumentalities  as 
are  strictly  and  indispensably  necessary  to  their  accomplish- 
ment; or  whether  it  might  select,  among  the  measures  which 
fairly  promote  such  Constitutional  ends,  any  method  which 
it  shall  think  for  the  public  interest,  exercising  this  power 
in  a  liberal  way,  and  remembering  in  doing  so  that  it  is  a 
Constitution— the  vital  power  of  a  free  people,— we  are 
defining  and  limiting,  and  not  an  ordinary  power  of  at- 

This  question  first  came  up  in  Washington's  Administra- 
tion, on  the  bill  for  establishing  a  National  Bank.  Sel- 
dom any  doubt  is  raised  now  as  to  the  Constitutional  power 
of  the  National  Government  to  accomplish  and  secure  any 
of  the  great  results  which  we  could  not  secure  before  the 
war,  by  reason  of  what  is  called  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights. 
Democrat  and  Republican,  men  of  the  South  and  men  of  the 
North  now  agree  in  exercising  without  a  scruple  the  power 
of  Congress  to  protect  American  industries  by  the  tariff,  to 
endow  and  to  subsidize  railroads  across  the  continent,  and 
to  build  an  Oceanic  canal. 

I  have  in  my  possession,  in  Roger  Sherman's  and  James 
Madison's  handwriting,  a  paper  which  contains  the  first 
statement  of  a  controversy  which  divided  parties  and  sec- 



tions,    which    inspired    Nullification,    and    which    entered 
largely  in  the  strife  which  brought  on  the  Civil  War. 
(In  Eoger  Sherman's  handwriting.) 

' '  You  will  admit  that  Congress  have  power  to  provide  by 
law  for  raising,  depositing  and  applying  money  for  the  pur- 
poses enumerated  in  the  Constitution."  X  (and  generally 
of  regulating  the  finances).  "That  they  have  power  so  far 
as  no  particular  rules  are  pointed  out  in  the  Constitution 
to  make  such  rules  and  regulations  as  they  may  judge  neces- 
sary and  proper  to  effect  these  purposes.  The  only  question 
that  remains  is— Is  a  bank  (a  necessary  and)  a  proper  meas- 
ure for  effecting  these  purposes  ?  And  is  not  this  a  question 
of  expediency  rather  than  of  right?" 

(The  following,  on  the  same  slip  of  paper,  is  in  James 
Madison's  handwriting.) 

"Feb.  4,  1791.  This  handed  to  J.  M.  by  Mr.  Sherman 
during  the  debate  on  the  constitutionality  of  the  bill  for  a 
National  bank.  The  line  marked  X  given  up  by  him  on  the 
objection  of  J.  M.  The  interlineation  of  'a  necessary  &'  by 
J.  M.  to  which  he  gave  no  other  answer  than  a  smile. ' ' 

The  other  matter  relates  to  the  power  of  removal  from 
office.  Upon  that  the  Constitution  is  silent.  In  the  begin- 
ning two  views  were  advocated.  There  was  a  great  debate 
in  1789,  which  Mr.  Evarts  declares,  "decidedly  the  most 
important  and  best  considered  debate  in  the  history  of  Con- 
gress." The  claim  that  the  power  of  removal  is  vested 
absolutely  in  the  President  by  the  Constitution  prevailed  in 
the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  under  the  lead  of  Madison, 
by  a  majority  of  twelve,  and  by  the  casting  vote  of  John 
Adams  in  the  Senate.     Mr.  Madison  said: 

"The  decision  that  is  at  this  time  made  will  become  the 
permanent  exposition  of  the  Constitution ;  and  on  a  perma- 
nent exposition  of  the  Constitution  will  depend  the  genius 
and  character  of  the  whole  Government." 

One  party  claimed  that  the  power  of  removal  was  a  neces- 
sary incident  to  the  power  of  appointment,  and  vested  in 


the  President  by  virtue  of  his  power  to  appoint.  It  was 
claimed  also  on  the  same  side  that  the  President's  duty  to 
see  the  laws  faithfully  executed  could  not  he  discharged  if 
subordinates  could  be  kept  in  office  against  his  will.  In 
most  cases  the  President  never  executes  the  laws  himself, 
but  only  has  to  see  them  executed  faithfully. 

This  view  prevailed,  as  we  have  seen,  in  Washington's 
Administration.  It  continued  to  be  acted  upon  till  the  time 
of  President  Johnson.  In  General  Jackson's  time  its 
soundness  was  challenged  by  Webster,  Calhoun  and  Clay. 
But  there  was  no  attempt  to  resist  it  in  practice.  Mr.  Web- 
ster in  1835  earnestly  dissented  from  the  original  decision, 
while  he  admitted  that  he  considered  it  "a  settled  point; 
settled  by  construction,  settled  by  precedent,  settled  by  the 
practice  of  the  Government,  and  settled  by  statute. ' '  It  re- 
mained so  settled,  until,  in  the  strife  which  followed  the 
rebellion,  a  two-thirds  majority  in  Congress  was  induced 
by  apprehension  of  a  grave  public  danger  to  attempt  to 
wrest  this  portion  of  the  executive  power  from  the  hands 
of  Andrew  Johnson.  The  statute  of  March  2,  1867,  as  con- 
strued by  nearly  two-thirds  of  the  Senate,  enacted  that 
officers  appointed  by  the  predecessor  of  President  Johnson, 
who,  by  the  law  in  force  when  they  were  appointed,  and  by 
the  express  terms  of  their  commission,  were  removable  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  President,  should  remain  in  office  until 
the  Senate  should  consent  to  the  appointment  of  their  suc- 
cessors, or  approve  their  removal. 

In  1867  Congress  undertook  to  determine  by  statute  the 
construction  of  the  Constitution  as  to  this  disputed  ques- 
tion. Some  persons  claimed  that  that  power  existed  in  the 
provision— "To  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and 
proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers, 
and  all  other  powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  or  in  any  Department  officer 

The  Constitutionality  and  effect  of  this  statute  were  de- 
bated on  the  trial  of  President  Johnson.  But  it  served  its 
purpose  during  the  last  two  years  of  Johnson's  Administra- 
tion.    Five  days  after  Grant's  inauguration,  the  House  of 


Eepresentatives,  by  a  vote  of  138  to  16,  passed  a  bill  totally 
repealing  it.  The  Senate  was  unwilling  to  let  go  the  hold 
which  it  had  acquired  on  the  Executive  power,  but  proposed 
to  suspend  the  law  for  one  year,  so  that  there  might  be  no 
obstacle  in  the  path  of  General  Grant  to  the  removal  of  the 
obnoxious  officials  who  had  adhered  to  Andrew  Johnson. 
So  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon.  It  permitted  the  Presi- 
dent to  suspend  officers  during  the  vacation  of  the  Senate, 
but  restored  officers  so  suspended  at  the  close  of  the  next 
session,  unless,  in  the  meantime,  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate  had  been  obtained  to  a  removal  or  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  successor. 

President  Grant,  in  his  message  of  December,  1869,  urged 
the  repeal  of  this  modified  act  on  the  ground  that — 

"It  could  not  have  been  the  intention  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution  that  the  Senate  should  have  the  power  to 
retain  in  office  persons  placed  there  by  Federal  appoint- 
ment, against  the  will  of  the  President.  The  law  is  incon- 
sistent with  a  faithful  and  efficient  administration  of  the 
Government.  What  faith  can  an  Executive  put  in  officials 
forced  on  him,  and  those,  too,  whom  he  has  suspended  for 
reason?  How  will  such  officials  be  likely  to  serve  an  Ad- 
ministration which  they  know  does  not  trust  them  1 ' ' 

The  House  acted  on  this  recommendation,  and  passed  a 
bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  statutes  of  1867  and  1869  by  a  vote 
of  159  to  25.  For  this  bill  the  whole  Massachusetts  dele- 
gation, including  Mr.  Dawes  and  myself,  voted.  It  was 
never  acted  on  by  the  Senate.  In  1872  a  similar  bill  passed 
the  House  without  a  division. 

The  Democratic  Party  has  invariably  supported  the  posi- 
tion of  Madison  and  Jackson,  that  the  power  of  removal  is 
vested  by  the  Constitution  in  the  President,  and  cannot 
be  controlled  by  legislation. 

This  was  the  condition  of  matters  when  Mr.  Cleveland 
came  into  office  March  4,  1885.  The  Eevised  Statutes, 
Sections  1767-1772,  contained  in  substance  the  law  as  it 
was  left  by  the  legislation  of  1867  and  1869  (Sec.  1767) : 
"Every  person  holding  any  civil  office  to  which  he  has  been 


or  hereafter  may  be  appointed  by  and  with  the  consent  of 
the  Senate,  and  who  shall  have  become  duly  qualified  to  act 
therein,  shall  be  entitled  to  hold  such  office  during  the  term 
for  which  he  was  appointed,  unless  sooner  removed  by  and 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  or  by  the  ap- 
pointment, with  the  like  advice  and  consent,  of  a  successor, 
in  his  place,  except  as  herein  otherwise  provided." 

The  President  was  however  authorized  to  suspend  civil 
officers  during  the  recess,  except  Judges,  until  the  next 
session  of  the  Senate,  and  to  designate  a  substitute  who 
should  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office,  himself  being  sub- 
ject to  removal  by  the  designation  of  another. 

The  President  was  further  required  to  nominate  within 
thirty  days  after  the  commencement  of  each  session  of  the 
Senate  persons  to  fill  all  vacancies  in  office,  which  existed  at 
the  meeting  of  the  Senate,  whether  temporarily  filled  or  not, 
and  in  place  of  all  officers  suspended.  If  no  appointment 
were  made,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  during 
such  session,  the  office  was  to  be  in  abeyance. 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  statute  required  the  assent  of  the 
Senate  to  the  exercise  of  the  President's  power  of  removal, 
although  without  its  consent  he  could  suspend  the  officer  so 
as  to  deprive  him  of  the  emoluments  of  his  office. 

So  the  appointment  of  a  new  officer  by  the  advice  and  con- 
sent of  the  Senate  operated  in  such  case  as  a  removal  of 
the  person  then  holding  office,  and  a  failure  of  the  Senate 
to  confirm  such  proposed  appointment  had  the  effect  to  re- 
store the  officer  suspended,  or  temporarily  removed. 

Under  these  conditions  there  grew  up  a  very  earnest  con- 
troversy between  President  Cleveland  and  the  Eepublican 
majority  in  the  Senate,  led  by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  of 
which  Mr.  Edmunds  was  then  Chairman.  It  has  been,  I 
suppose  from  the  beginning  of  the  Government,  the  practice 
of  the  President  to  furnish  to  the  Senate  all  papers  and 
documents  in  his  possession  relating  to  the  fitness  of  officials 
nominated  to  the  Senate. 

Mr.  Cleveland  made  no  objection,  if  I  understood  him  cor- 
rectly, to  continuing  that  practice.  But  he  claimed  that  the 
Senate  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  exercise  of  his  power  of 


removal,  and  therefore  was  not  entitled  to  be  informed  of 
the  evidence  upon  wMcli  he  acted  in  that.  So  he  refused 
and  sustained  the  heads  of  Departments  in  refusing  the  re- 
quest of  the  Senate  to  send  for  its  information  the  docu- 
ments on  file  relating  to  removals. 

This  position  was  encountered  by  the  Eepublican  ma- 
jority, some  of  them  claiming  that  the  Senate  had  the  same 
rightful  share  in  the  removals  as  in  appointments,  and  that 
no  difference  was  to  be  made  between  the  two  cases.  Others 
believed,  as  I  did,  that  although  the  power  of  removal  might 
be  exercised  by  the  President  alone  on  his  own  respon- 
sibility, without  requiring  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  still  that  while  the  President  was  proceeding  under 
the  law  by  which  the  appointment  itself  operated  as  a  re- 
moval, and  a  failure  to  affirm  the  appointment  restored  the 
old  officer  to  his  place  again,  that  the  Senate  whose  action 
was  to  have  that  important  effect,  was  entitled  not  only  to 
know  whether  the  public  interest  would  be  served  by  the 
appointment  of  the  proposed  official  on  his  own  merits 
solely,  but  also  whether  it  would  be  best  served  by  the  re- 
moval of  his  predecessor  or  by  the  restoration  to  office  of  his 
predecessor.  Both  the  President  and  the  Senate  were 
acting  under  the  existing  law,  treating  it  as  in  force  and 
valid.  Now  suppose  it  were  true  that  the  question  of  ad- 
vising and  consenting  to  the  appointment  proposed  by  the 
President  were  a  very  doubtful  one  indeed,  the  question  on 
its  merits  being  closely  balanced;  and  the  officer  to  be 
removed  or  restored  according  as  the  Senate  should  consent 
or  refuse  to  consent,  was  a  man  of  conspicuous  and  un- 
questioned capacity  and  character,  against  whom  no  reason- 
able objection  was  brought,  to  be  removed  for  political 
reasons  solely.  The  Senate  certainly,  in  exercising  its 
power  had  the  right  to  consider  all  that  the  President  had 
a  right  to  consider,  and  therefore  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
were  justified,  in  that  class  of  cases,  in  asking  for  the  docu- 
ments in  his  possession  bearing  upon  the  question  of 

It  will  be  observed  that  in  none  of  the  arguments  of  this 
Constitutional  question  has  it  been  claimed  that  the  Presi- 


dent  had  the  right  without  statute  authority  to  suspend 
public  officers,  even  if  he  had  the  right  to  remove  them. 
That  right,  if  he  had  it  at  all,  he  got  under  the  statute  under 
which  he  and  the  Senate  were  acting. 

On  the  17th  of  July,  1885,  the  President  issued  an  order 
suspending  George  M.  Duskin  of  Alabama,  from  the  office 
of  Attorney  of  the  United  States,  by  virtue  of  the  authority 
conferred  upon  him  by  Sec.  1768  of  the  Revised  Statutes, 
which  is  a  reenactment  of  the  law  of  which  I  have  just 

On  the  14th  of  December,  1885,  the  President  nominated 
to  the  Senate  John  D.  Burnett,  vice  George  M.  Duskin,  sus- 
pended. The  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
as  had  been  usual  in  such  cases,  addressed  a  note  to  the 
Attorney-General,  asking  that  all  papers  and  information 
in  the  possession  of  the  Department  touching  the  con- 
duct and  administration  of  the  officer  proposed  to  be  re- 
moved, and  touching  the  character  and  conduct  of  the  per- 
son proposed  to  be  appointed,  be  sent  to  the  Committee  for 
its  information.  To  this  the  Attorney-General  replied  that 
he  was  directed  by  the  President  to  say  that  there  had  been 
sent  already  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  all  papers  in  the 
Department  relating  to  the  fitness  of  John  D.  Burnett,  re- 
cently nominated,  but  that  it  was  not  considered  that  the 
public  interests  would  be  promoted  by  a  compliance  with 
said  resolution  and  the  transmission  of  the  papers  and  docu- 
ment therein  mentioned  to  the  Senate  in  Executive  session. 

That  made  a  direct  issue.  Thereupon  a  very  powerful 
report  affirming  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  require  such 
papers  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Edmunds,  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  signed  by  George  F.  Ed- 
munds, Chairman,  John  J.  Ingalls,  S.  J.  R.  McMillan, 
George  F.  Hoar,  James  F.  Wilson  and  William  M.  Evarts. 

This  was  accompanied  by  a  dissenting  report  by  the  min- 
ority of  the  Committee,  signed  by  James  L.  Pugh,  Eichard 
Coke,  George  C.  Vest  and  Howell  E.  Jackson,  afterward  As- 
sociate Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

So  it  will  be  seen  that  the  two  sides  were  very  powerfully 
represented.     The  report  of  the  Committee  was  encountered 


by  a  message  from  President  Cleveland,  dated  March  1, 
1886,  in  which  the  President  claimed  that  these  papers  in 
the  Attorney-General's  Department  were  in  no  sense  upon 
its  files,  but  were  deposited  there  for  his  convenience.  He 
said:  "I  suppose  if  I  desired  to  take  them  into  my  custody 
I  might  do  so  with  entire  propriety,  and  if  I  saw  fit  to  de- 
stroy them  no  one  could  complain."  Continuing,  the  Presi- 
dent says  that  the  demands  of  the  Senate  ' '  assume  the  right 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  exercise  of  my  exclusive  dis- 
cretion and  Executive  function,  for  which  I  am  solely  re- 
sponsible to  the  people  from  whom  I  have  so  lately  received 
the  sacred  trust  of  office." 

He  refers  to  the  laws  upon  which  the  Senate  based  its 
demand  and  said:  "After  an  existence  of  nearly  twenty 
years  of  almost  innocuous  desuetude  these  laws  are  brought 
forth— -apparently  the  repealed  as  well  as  the  unrepealed— 
and  put  in  the  way  of  an  Executive  who  is  willing,  if  per- 
mitted, to  attempt  an  improvement  in  the  methods  of 
administration.  The  Constitutionality  of  these  laws  is  by 
no  means  admitted." 

The  President  seemed  to  forget  that  he  had  taken  action 
under  those  laws,  and  had  expressly  cited  them  as  the 
authority  for  his  action,  in  his  message  announcing  the 
suspension  of  the  official. 

The  controversy  waxed  warm  in  the  Senate,  and  in  the 
press  throughout  the  country.  The  effect  of  it  was  that  the 
confirmation  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  nominees  for  important 
offices  was  postponed  for  several  months,  in  some  cases 
eight  to  ten,  but  as  they  were  exercising  their  functions 
under  temporary  appointments,  it  made  no  difference  to 
them.  When  they  were  at  last  confirmed  by  the  Senate, 
they  received  commissions  dated  from  the  appointment 
which  took  place  after  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 
So  the  four  years,  for  which  they  could  hold  office,  began 
to  run  then,  and  when  a  new  Administration  of  different 
politics  came  into  power,  they  held  their  office  for  a  period 
considerably  more  than  four  years,  except  a  few  who  were 
actually  removed  by  President  Harrison. 

I  do  not  think  the  people  cared  much  about  the  dispute. 


The  sympathy  was  rather  with  President  Cleveland.  The 
people,  both  Eepublicans  and  Democrats,  expected  that  the 
political  control  of  the  more  important  offices  would  be 
changed  when  a  new  party  came  into  power,  and  considered 
Mr.  Edmunds's  Constitutional  argument  as  a  mere  ingen- 
ious device  to  protract  the  day  when  their  political  fate 
should  overtake  the  Republican  officials. 

I  united  with  the  majority  of  the  Committee  in  the  report, 
for  the  reasons  I  have  stated  above.  I  still  think  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Senate  right,  and  that  of  the  President  wrong. 
But  I  never  agreed  to  the  claim  that  the  Senate  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  President's  power  of  removal.  So  I 
took  the  first  opportunity  to  introduce  a  bill  repealing  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  relating  to  the  tenure  of  office, 
which  interfered  with  the  President's  power  of  removal, 
so  that  we  might  go  back  again  to  the  law  which  had  been 
in  force  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government,  in  the  con- 
troversy with  President  Jackson.  A  majority  of  the  Ee- 
publicans had  attempted  to  do  that,  as  I  have  said,  in  the 
first  session  of  Congress  under  President  Grant.  But  it 
had  been  defeated  by  the  Senate.  So  I  introduced  in  the 
December  session,  1886,  a  bill  which  became  a  law  March 
3,  1887,  as  follows  : 

"Be  enacted,  etc..  That  sections  1767,  1768,  1769,  1770, 
1771,  and  1772  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United  States 
are  hereby  repealed. 

"Sec.  2.  This  repeal  shall  not  affect  any  officer  hereto- 
fore suspended  under  the  provisions  of  said  sections,  or  any 
designation,  nomination  or  appointment  heretofore  made  by 
virtue  of  the  provisions  thereof. 

' '  Approved,  March  3,  1887. ' ' 

But  the  blood  of  my  Republican  associates  was  up.  I  got 
a  few  Republican  votes  for  my  Bill.  It  passed  the  House 
by  a  vote  of  172  to  67.  Every  Massachusetts  Representa- 
tive voted  for  the  Bill,  as  did  Speaker  Reed.  But  in  general 
the  votes  against  it  were  Republican  votes.  Governor  Long 
made  an  able  speech  in  its  favor. 


In  the  Senate  three  Eepublicans  only  voted  with  me. 
Among  the  nays  were  several  Senators  who,  as  members 
of  the  House,  had  voted  for  a  Bill  involving  the  same  prin- 
ciple in  1869.  Mr.  Evarts,  though  absent  at  the  time  of  the 
vote,  declared  his  approval  of  the  Bill  in  debate ;  and  so,  I 
think,  did  Mr.  Dawes,  although  of  that  I  am  not  sure.  Mr. 
Edmunds  opposed  it  with  all  his  might  and  main. 

Mr.  Sherman,  always  a  good  friend  of  mine,  remonstrated 
with  me.  He  asked  me  with  great  seriousness,  if  I  was  con- 
scious of  the  extent  of  the  feeling  among  the  Eepublicans  of 
the  Senate  at  my  undertaking  to  act  in  opposition  to  them  on 
this  and  one  or  two  other  important  matters,  to  which  he 
alluded.  I  replied  that  I  must  of  course  do  what  seemed  to 
be  my  duty,  and  that  in  my  opinion  I  was  rendering  a 
great  service  to  the  Republican  Party  in  getting  rid  of  the 
controversy  in  which  the  people  sympathized  generally  with 
the  Democrats,  and  that  I  thought  the  gentlemen  who  dif- 
fered from  me,  would  come  to  my  way  of  thinking  pretty 
soon.  The  result  proved  the  soundness  of  my  judgment. 
I  do  not  think  a  man  can  be  found  in  the  Senate  now  who 
would  wish  to  go  back  to  the  law  which  was  passed  to  put 
fetters  on  the  limbs  of  Andrew  Johnson.  I  have  asked 
several  gentlemen  who  voted  against  the  repeal  whether 
they  did  not  think  so,  and  they  all  now  agree  that  the  meas- 
ure was  eminently  wise  and  right.  The  opposition  to  the 
statute  of  1887  was  but  the  dying  embers  of  the  old  fires 
of  the  Johnson  controversy. 


If,  on  looking  back,  I  were  to  select  the  things  which  I 
have  done  in  public  life  in  which  I  take  most  satisfaction, 
they  would  be,  the  speech  in  the  Senate  on  the  Fisheries 
Treaty,  July  10,  1888,  the  letter  denouncing  the  A.  P.  A.,  a 
secret,  political  association,  organized  for  the  purpose  of 
ostracizing  our  Catholic  fellow-citizens,  and  the  numerous 
speeches,  letters  and  magazine  articles  against  the  subjuga- 
tion of  the  Philippine  Islands. 

I  do  not  think  any  one  argument,  certainly  that  my  argu- 
ment, caused  the  defeat  of  the  Fisheries  Treaty,  negotiated 
by  Mr.  Joseph  Chamberlain  and  Mr.  Bayard  during  Mr. 
Cleveland's  first  Administration.  The  argument  against 
it  was  too  strong  not  to  have  prevailed  without  any  one 
man 's  contribution  to  it ;  and  the  Senate  was  not  so  strongly 
inclined  to  support  President  Cleveland  as  to  give  a  two- 
thirds  majority  to  a  measure,  unless  it  seemed  clearly  for 
the  public  interest.  He  had  his  Eepublican  opponents  to 
reckon  with,  and  the  Democrats  in  the  Senate  disliked  him 
very  much,  and  gave  him  a  feeble  and  half-hearted  support. 

The  question  of  our  New  England  fisheries  has  interested 
the  people  of  the  country,  especially  of  New  England,  from 
our  very  early  history.  Burke  spoke  of  them  before  the 
Revolutionary  "War,  as  exciting  even  then  the  envy  of  Eng- 
land. One  of  the  best  known  and  most  eloquent  passages 
in  all  literature  is  his  description  of  the  enterprise  of  our 
fathers.     Burke  adds  to  that  description: 

"When  I  reflect  upon  the  effects,  when  I  see  how  profit- 
able they  have  been  to  us,  I  feel  all  the  pride  of  power  sink, 
and  all  presumption  in  the  wisdom  of  human  contrivances 
10  145 


melt  and  die  away  within  me.    My  rigor  relents.    I  pardon 
something  to  the  spirit  of  Liberty. ' ' 

The  War  of  the  Revolution,  of  course,  interrupted  for  a 
time  the  fisheries  of  the  American  colonies.  But  the  fisher- 
men were  not  idle.  They  manned  the  little  Navy  whose 
exploits  have  never  yet  received  from  history  its  due  meed 
of  praise.  They  furnished  the  ships'  companies  of  Manly 
and  Tucker  and  Biddle  and  Abraham  Whipple.  They 
helped  Paul  Jones  to  strike  terror  into  St.  George's  Chan- 
nel. In  1776,  in  the  first  year  of  the  Revolutionary  War, 
American  privateers,  most  of  them  manned  by  our  fisher- 
men, captured  three  hundred  and  forty-two  British  vessels. 

The  fisheries  came  up  again  after  the  war.  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son commended  them  to  the  favor  of  the  nation  in  an  elab- 
orate and  admirable  report.  He  said  that  before  the  war 
8,000  men  and  52,000  tons  of  shipping  were  annually  em- 
ployed by  Massachusetts  in  the  cod  and  whale  fisheries. 
England  and  France  made  urgent  efforts  and  offered  large 
bounties  to  get  our  fishermen  to  move  over  there. 

For  a  long  time  the  fisheries  were  aided  by  direct  bounties. 
Later  the  policy  of  protection  has  been  substituted. 

John  Adams  has  left  on  record  that  when  he  went  abroad 
as  our  representative  in  1778,  and  again  when  the  Treaty 
of  1783  was  negotiated,  his  knowledge  of  the  fisheries  and 
his  sense  of  their  importance  were  what  induced  him  to 
take  the  mission.  He  declared  that  unless  our  claims  were 
fully  recognized,  the  States  would  carry  on  the  war  alone. 
He  said : 

"Because  the  people  of  New  England,  besides  the  natural 
claim  of  mankind  to  the  gifts  of  Providence  on  their  coast, 
are  specially  entitled  to  the  fishery  by  their  charters,  which 
have  never  been  declared  forfeited." 

In  the  debate  on  the  articles  of  peace  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  Lord  Loughborough,  the  ablest  lawyer  of  his  party, 

"The  fishery  on  the  shores  retained  by  Britain  is  in  the 
next  article  not  ceded,  but  recognized  as  a  right  inherent  in 


the  Americans,  whicli  though  no  longer  British  subjects, 
they  are  to  continue  to  enjoy  unmolested." 

This  was  denied  nowhere  in  the  debate. 

John  Adams  took  greater  satisfaction  in  his  achievement 
which  secured  our  fisheries  in  the  treaty  of  1783  than  in  any 
other  of  the  great  acts  of  his  life.*  After  the  treaty  of  1783 
he  had  a  seal  struck  with  the  figures  of  the  pine  tree,  the  deer 
and  the  fish,  emblems  of  the  territory  and  the  fisheries  se- 
cured in  1783.  He  had  it  engraved  anew  in  1815  with  the 
motto,  "Piscemur,  venemur,  ut  olim."  I  have  in  my  pos- 
session an  impression  taken  from  the  original  seal  of  1815. 
This  letter  from  John  Quincy  Adams  tells  its  story: 

"QuiNCY,  September  3, 1836. 

"My  Dear  Son:  On  this  day,  the  anniversary  of  the  defini- 
tive treaty  of  peace  of  1783,  whereby  the  independence  of 
the  United  States  of  America  was  recognized,  and  the  anni- 
versary of  your  own  marriage,  I  give  you  a  seal,  the  im- 
pression upon  which  was  a  device  of  my  father,  to  com- 
memorate the  successful  assertion  of  two  great  interests  in 
the  negotiation  for  the  peace,  the  liberty  of  the  fisheries,  and 
the  boundary  securing  the  acquisition  of  the  western  lands. 
The  deer,  the  pine  tree,  and  the  fish  are  the  emblems  rep- 
resenting those  interests. 

' '  The  seal  which  my  father  had  engraved  in  1783  was  with- 
out the  motto.  He  gave  it  in  his  lifetime  to  your  deceased 
brother  John,  to  whose  family  it  belongs.  That  which  I 
now  give  to  you  I  had  engraved  by  his  direction  at  London 
in  1815,  shortly  after  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of  peace 
at  Ghent,  on  the  24th  of  December,  1814,  at  the  negotiation 
of  which  the  same  interests,  the  fisheries,  and  the  bounty 
had  been  deeply  involved.  The  motto,  'Piscemur,  vene- 
mur, ut  olim,'  is  from  Horace. 

"I  request  you,  should  the  blessing  of  heaven  preserve  the 
life  of  your  son,  Charles  Francis,  and  make  him  worthy 
of  your  approbation,  to  give  it  at  your  own  time  to  him  as 
a  token  of  remembrance  of  my  father,  who  gave  it  to  me, 
and  of  yours.  John  Quincy  Adams." 

"My  son  Charles  Francis  Adams." 

*  See  Ante,  p.  131. 


The  negotiations  of  1815  and  1818  were  under  the  control 
of  as  dauntless  and  uncompromising  a  spirit,  and  one  quite 
as  alive  to  the  value  of  the  fisheries  and  the  dishonor  of 
abandoning  them  as  that  of  John  Adams  himself.  If  John 
Quincy  Adams,  the  senior  envoy  at  Ghent,  and  the  Secre- 
tary of  State  in  1818,  had  consented  to  a  treaty  bearing  the 
construction  which  is  lately  claimed  he  never  could  have 
gone  home  to  face  his  father.  "When  the  War  of  1812  ended. 
Great  Britain  set  up  the  preposterous  claim  that  the  war 
had  abrogated  all  treaties,  and  that  with  the  treaty  of  1783 
our  rights  in  the  fisheries  were  gone.  There  was  alarm  in 
New  England;  but  it  was  quieted  by  the  knowledge  that 
John  Quincy  Adams  was  one  of  our  representatives.  It 
was  well  said  at  that  time  that,  as 

"John  Adams  saved  the  fisheries  once,  his  son  would  a 
second  time." 

When  someone  expressed  a  fear  that  the  other  commis- 
sioners would  not  stand  by  his  son,  the  old  man  wrote  in 
1814,  that- 

"  Bayard,  Eussell,  Clay,  or  even  Gallatin,  would  cede  the 
fee-simple  of  the  United  States  as  soon  as  they  would  cede 
the  fisheries"  (pp.  21-22). 

These  fisheries  still  support  the  important  city  of  Glouces- 
ter, and  are  a  very  valuable  source  of  wealth  to  the  hardy 
and  enterprising  people  who  maintain  them.  Their  story  is 
full  of  romance.  A  touching  yearly  ceremonial  is  cele- 
brated at  the  present  time  in  Gloucester  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  men  who  are  lost  in  this  dangerous  employment. 

But  the  value  of  the  fisheries  does  not  consist  chiefly  in 
historic  association  or  in  the  wealth  which  they  contribute 
to  any  such  community. 

They  are  the  nursery  of  seamen,  more  valuable  and  less 
costly  than  the  Naval  School  at  Annapolis.  They  train  the 
men  who  are  employed  in  them  to  get  to  be  at  home  on  the 
sea.  They  are  valuable  for  naval  officers  and  for  sailors. 
Whenever  there  shall  be  a  war  with  a  naval  power,  they 


will  be  thrown  out  of  employ,  and  will  seek  service  in  our 
Navy.  All  the  English  authorities,  I  believe,  concur  in  this 
opinion.  I  read  in  my  speech  a  very  interesting  letter  from 
Admiral  Porter  who  testified  strongly  to  that  effect. 

While  it  is  true  that  many  of  our  common  sailors  engaged 
in  our  cod  and  other  fisheries  are  of  foreign  birth,  it  is 
equally  true  that  they,  almost  all  of  them,  come  to  live  in 
this  country,  get  naturalized  and  become  ardent  Amer- 
icans. This  is  true  of  the  natives  of  the  British  Dominions. 
But  it  is  still  more  true  of  the  Scandinavians,  a  hardy  and 
adventurous  race,  faithful  and  brave,  who  become  full  of  the 
spirit  of  American  nationality. 

Mr.  Bayard  who  was,  I  think,  inspired  by  a  patriotic  and 
praiseworthy  desire  to  establish  more  friendly  relations 
with  Great  Britain,  seemed  to  me  to  give  away  the  whole 
American  case,  and  to  have  been  bamboozled  by  Joseph 
Chamberlain  at  every  point.  The  Treaty  gave  our  markets 
to  Canada  without  anything  of  value  to  us  in  return,  and 
afforded  no  just  indemnity  for  the  past  outrages  of  which 
we  justly  complained,  and  gave  no  security  for  the  future. 

The  Treaty,  which  required  a  two-thirds  majority  for  its 
ratification,  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-seven  yeas 
to  thirty  nays.  There  were  nine  Senators  paired  in  the 
affirmative,  and  eight  in  the  negative.  The  vote  was  a  strict 
party  vote,  with  the  exception  of  Messrs.  Palmer  and 
Turpie,  Democrats,  who  were  against  it. 

I  discussed  the  subject  with  great  earnestness,  going 
fully  into  the  history  of  the  matter,  and  the  merits  of  the 
Treaty.  I  think  I  may  say  without  undue  vanity  that  my 
speech  was  an  important  and  interesting  contribution  to  a 
very  creditable  chapter  of  our  history. 



In  DecemlDer,  1889,  the  Republican  Party  succeeded  to 
the  legislative  power  in  the  country  for  the  first  time  in 
sixteen  years.  Since  1873  there  had  been  a  Democratic 
President  for  four  years,  and  a  Democratic  House  or  Senate 
or  both  for  the  rest  of  the  time.  There  was  a  general 
belief  on  the  part  of  the  Eepublicans,  that  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  as  constituted  for  fourteen  years  of  that 
time,  and  that  the  Presidency  itself  when  occupied  by  Mr. 
Cleveland,  represented  nothing  but  usurpation,  by  which, 
in  large  districts  of  the  country,  the  willof  the  people  had 
been  defeated.  There  were  some  faint  denials  at  the  time 
when  these  claims  were  made  in  either  House  of  Congress 
as  to  elections  in  the  Southern  States.  But  nobody  seems 
to  deny  now,  that  the  charges  were  true.  Mr.  Senator 
Tillman  of  South  Carolina  stated  in  my  hearing  in  the 
Senate : 

"We  took  the  Government  away.  We  stuffed  ballot 
boxes.  We  shot  them.  We  are  not  ashamed  of  it.  The 
Senator  from  Wisconsin  would  have  done  the  same  thing. 
I  see  it  in  his  eye  right  now.  He  would  have  done  it. 
With  that  system— force,  tissue  ballots,  etc.— we  got  tired 
ourselves.  So  we  called  a  Constitutional  Convention,  and 
we  eliminated,  as  I  said,  all  of  the  colored  people  whom  we 
could  under  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  amendments. 

"I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  remarkable  change 
that  has  come  over  the  spirit  of  the  dream  of  the  Republi- 
cans; to  remind  you,  gentlemen  of  the  North,  that  your 
slogans  of  the  past— brotherhood  of  man  and  fatherhood 
of  Grod— have  gone  glimmering  down  the  ages.  The 
brotherhood  of  man  exists  no  longer,  because  you  shoot 



negroes  in  Illinois,  when  they  come  in  competition  with  your 
labor,  and  we  shoot  them  in  South  Carolina,  when  they 
come  in  competition  with  us  in  the  matter  of  elections.  You 
do  not  love  them  any  better  than  we  do.  You  used  to  pre- 
tend that  you  did;  but  you  no  longer  pretend  it,  except  to 
get  their  votes. 

"You  deal  with  the  Filipinos  just  as  you  deal  with  the 
negroes,  only  you  treat  them  a  heap  worse." 

No  Democrat  rose  to  deny  his  statement,  and,  so  far  as 
I  know,  no  Democratic  paper  contradicted  it.  The  Eepubli- 
cans,  who  had  elected  President  Harrison  and  a  Republican 
House  in  1888,  were  agreed,  with  very  few  exceptions,  as  to 
the  duty  of  providing  a  remedy  for  this  great  wrong. 
Their  Presidential  Convention,  held  at  Chicago  in  1888, 
passed  a  resolution  demanding,  "effective  legislation  to 
secure  integrity  and  purity  of  elections,  which  are  the  foun- 
tains of  all  public  authority,"  and  charged  that  the  "present 
Administration  and  the  Democratic  majority  in  Congress 
owe  their  existence  to  the  suppression  of  the  ballot  by  a 
criminal  nullification  of  the  Constitution  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States." 

In  the  Senate  at  the  winter  session  of  1888  and  at  the 
beginning  of  the  December  session  of  1889,  a  good  many 
Bills  were  introduced  for  the  security  of  National  elections. 
Similar  Bills  were  introduced  in  the  House.  A  special 
Committee  was  appointed  there  to  deal  with  that  subject. 
I  had,  myself,  no  doubt  of  the  Constitutional  authority  of 
Congress,  and  of  its  duty,  if  it  were  able,  to  pass  an  effective 
law  for  that  purpose. 

I  was  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Privileges  and 
Elections,  and  it  was  my  duty  to  give  special  attention  to 
that  subject.  I  had  carefully  prepared  a  Bill  in  the  vaca- 
tion, based  on  one  introduced  by  Mr.  Sherman,  providing 
for  holding,  under  National  authority,  separate  registrations 
and  elections  for  Members  of  Congress.  But  when  I  got  to 
"Washington,  I  found,  on  consultation  with  every  Republi- 
can Senator  except  one,  that  a  large  majority  were  averse 
to  an  arrangement  which  would  double  the  cost  of  elections 


througlioiit  the  country,  and  which,  in  States  where  personal 
registration  every  year  is  required,  would  demand  from 
every  citizen  his  presence  at  the  place  of  polling  or  regis- 
tration four  times  every  alternate  year.  That  is,  in  the 
years  when  there  were  Congressmen  to  be  elected  he  must 
go  twice  to  be  registered— once  for  the  State  election,  and 
once  for  the  Congressional— and  twice  to  vote.  So  I  drew 
another  Bill.  I  say  I  drew  it.  But  I  had  the  great  advan- 
tage of  consultation  with  Senator  Spooner  of  Wisconsin, 
a  very  able  lawyer  who  had  lately  come  to  the  Senate,  and 
I  can  hardly  say  that  the  Bill,  as  it  was  finally  drafted,  was 
more  mine  or  his.  This  Bill  provided,  in  substance,  that 
there  should  be  National  officers  of  both  parties  who  should 
be  present  at  the  registration  and  election  of  Members  of 
Congress,  and  at  the  count  of  the  vote,  and  who  should 
know  and  report  everything  which  should  happen,  so  that 
all  facts  affecting  the  honesty  of  the  election  and  the  return 
might  be  before  the  House  of  Eepresentatives.  To  this 
were  added  some  sections  providing  for  the  punishment  of 
bribery,  fraud  and  misconduct  of  election  officers. 

In  the  meantime  the  House  of  Representatives  had  ap- 
pointed a  special  Committee  charged  with  a  similar  duty. 
Members  of  that  Committee  saw  me,  and  insisted,  with  a 
good  deal  of  reason,  that  a  measure  which  concerned  the 
election  of  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
should  originate  in  that  body.  Accordingly  the  Senate 
Committee  held  back  its  Bill,  and  awaited  the  action  of  the 
House,  which  sent  a  Bill  to  the  Senate,  July  15,  1890.  The 
House  Bill  dealt  not  only  with  the  matter  of  elections,  but 
also  with  the  selection  of  juries,  and  some  other  important 
kindred  subjects.  Our  Committee  struck  out  from  it  every- 
thing that  did  not  bear  directly  on  elections;  mitigated  the 
severity  of  the  penalties,  and  reduced  the  bulk  of  the  Bill 
very  considerably.  The  measure  was  reported  in  a  new 
draft  by  way  of  substitute.  It  remained  before  the  Senate 
until  the  beginning  of  the  next  Session,  when  it  was  taken 
up  for  action.     It  was  a  very  simple  measure. 

It  only  extended  the  law  which,  with  the  approbation  of 
both  parties,  had  been  in  force  in  cities  of  more  than  twenty 


thousand  inhabitants,  to  Congressional  districts,  when  there 
should  be  an  application  to  the  Court,  setting  forth  the 
necessity  for  its  protection.  That  law  had  received  the 
commendation  of  many  leading  Democrats,  including  S.  S. 
Cox,  Secretary  Whitney,  the  four  Democratic  Congressmen 
who  represented  Brooklyn,  and  General  Slocum,  then  Eep- 
resentative  at  large  from  the  State  of  New  York.  It  had 
been  put  in  force  on  the  application  of  Democrats  quite  as 
often  as  on  that  of  Eepublicans.  We  added  to  our  Bill  a 
provision  that  in  case  of  a  dispute  concerning  an  election 
certificate,  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  in  which 
the  district  was  situated  should  hear  the  case  and  should 
award  a  certificate  entitling  the  member  to  be  placed  on  the 
Clerk's  roll,  and  to  hold  his  seat  until  the  House  itself 
should  act  on  the  case.  That  provision  was  copied  from 
the  English  law  of  1868  which  has  given  absolute  public 
satisfaction  there.  This  was  the  famous  Force  Bill,  and 
the  whole  of  it — a  provision  that,  if  a  sufficient  peti- 
tion were  made  to  the  court  for  that  purpose,  officers, 
appointed  by  the  court,  belonging  to  both  parties  should 
be  present  and  watch  the  election;  that  the  Judge  of 
the  Circuit  Court  should  determine,  in  case  of  dispute, 
what  name  should  be  put  on  the  roll  of  the  House  of 
Eepresentatives,  in  the  beginning,  subject  to  the  Consti- 
tutional power  of  the  House  to  correct  it,  and  that  a  moder- 
ate punishment  for  bribery,  intimidation  and  fraud,  on 
indictment  and  conviction  by  a  jury  of  the  vicinage,  should 
be  imposed.     That  was  the  whole  of  it. 

But  the  Southern  Democratic  leaders,  with  great  adroit- 
ness, proceeded  to  repeat  the  process  known  as  "firing  the 
Southern  heart."  They  persuaded  their  people  that  there 
was  an  attempt  to  control  elections  by  National  authority. 
They  realized  that  the  waning  power  of  their  party  at  the 
South,  many  of  whose  business  men  saw  that  the  path  of 
prosperity  for  the  South  as  well  as  for  the  North  lay  in  the 
adoption  of  Eepublican  policies,  might  be  reestablished  by 
exciting  the  fear  of  negro  domination.  The  Northern 
Democrats,  either  very  ignorantly  or  wilfully,  united  in  the 
outcry.     Governor  William  E.  Eussell  of  Massachusetts,  a 


gentleman  of  large  influence  and  popularity  with  both 
parties,  telegraphed  to  President  Cleveland  a  pious  thanks- 
giving for  the  defeat  of  this  "wicked  Bill." 

Some  worthy  Eepuhlican  Senators  became  alarmed. 
They  thought,  with  a  good  deal  of  reason,  that  it  was  better 
to  allow  existing  evils  and  conditions  to  be  cured  by  time, 
and  the  returning  conscience  and  good  sense  of  the  people, 
rather  than  have  the  strife,  the  result  of  which  must  be 
quite  doubtful,  which  the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  this 
law,  however  moderate  and  just,  would  inevitably  create. 

On  reflection,  I  came  myself  to  the  conclusion  that,  while 
the  Bill  was  reasonable  and  there  was  no  reasonable  doubt 
of  the  power  of  Congress  to  enact  it,  yet  the  attempt  to  pass 
it,  if  it  were  to  fail,  would  do  the  cause  infinite  mischief.  It 
would  be  an  exhibition  of  impotence,  always  injurious  to 
a  political  party.  It  would  drive  back  into  the  Democratic 
Party  many  men  who  were  afraid  of  negro  domination ;  who 
looked  with  great  dislike  on  the  assertion  of  National  power 
over  elections,  and  whom  other  considerations  would  induce 
to  act  with  the  Eepublicans.  So  I  thought  it  was  best  to 
ascertain  carefully  the  prevailing  opinion  and  see  if  we 
were  likely  to  get  the  Bill  through,  and,  if  we  found  that 
unlikely,  not  to  proceed  far  enough  to  have  a  debate  in 
either  House. 

Accordingly  I  visited  the  House  of  Representatives,  saw 
several  of  my  Massachusetts  colleagues  and  some  other 
leaders.  They  agreed  that,  if  I  found  that  the  Bill  could 
not,  in  all  probability,  pass  the  Senate,  it  should  be  arranged 
to  lay  it  aside  in  the  House  without  making  any  serious 
movement  for  it  there.  After  that  arrangement  was  made 
there  was  a  Senate  caucus.  I  brought  up  the  matter  and 
moved  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  to  consider  the 
whole  question  of  legislation  with  reference  to  the  security 
of  elections.  A  gentleman  who  had  recently  become  a 
Member  of  the  Senate  rose  and  quite  angrily  objected  to 
taking  up  the  matter  for  consideration.  He  declared  that 
he  would  not  consent  to  have  the  subject  introduced  in  a 
Eepublican  caucus.  The  proceedings  of  such  caucuses  are 
supposed  to  be  kept  from  the  public.    But  they  are  pretty 


sure  to  leak  out.  I  could  not  very  well  get  up  and  say  that 
my  reason  for  asking  for  a  committee  was  to  see  whether 
the  law  should  be  suppressed  or  not.  So  I  did  not  urge  my 
motion.    But  I  did  the  best  I  could. 

Before  reporting  the  Bill  I  saw  every  Eepublican  Sena- 
tor and  obtained  his  opinion  upon  it.  I  have  in  my  posses- 
sion the  original  memoranda  of  the  various  answers.  Not 
only  a  majority  of  the  Republican  Senators,  but  a  majority 
of  the  whole  Senate  declared  emphatically  for  an  Election 
Bill.  I  further  consulted  them  whether  the  authority,  in 
case  of  a  disputed  election,  to  order,  upon  hearing,  the 
name  of  the  person  found  to  be  elected  to  be  placed  on  the 
roll  should  be  lodged  in  the  United  States  Courts,  or  in 
some  special  tribunal.  Two  or  three  preferred  that  the 
court  should  not  be  invoked.  But  a  majority  of  the  whole 
Senate  favored  vesting  the  power  in  the  courts,  and  those 
who  preferred  another  way  stated  that  they  were  willing  to 
abide  by  the  judgment  of  the  Committee. 

When  the  House  Bill  came  up,  it  was,  on  the  7th  of 
August,  1890,  reported  favorably  with  my  Bill  as  a  substi- 
tute. Meantime  the  McKinley  Tariff  Bill,  which  Mr.  Cleve- 
land had  made,  so  far  as  he  could,  the  sole  issue  in  the  late 
election,  had  been  matured  and  reported.  It  affected  all 
the  business  interests  of  the  country.  They  were  in  a  state 
of  uncertainty  and  alarm.  Mr.  Quay  of  Pennsylvania  pro- 
posed a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  certain  enumerated 
measures,  not  including  the  Election  Bill,  should  be  con- 
sidered at  that  session,  and  that  all  others  should  be  post- 
poned. That,  I  suppose,  would  have  had  the  entire  Demo- 
cratic support  and  Republicans  enough  to  give  it  a  majority. 
It  would  have  postponed  the  Election  Bill  without  giving 
any  assurance  of  its  consideration  at  the  short  session.  So  a 
conference  of  Republicans  was  held  at  which  an  agreement 
was  made,  which  I  drew  up,  and  signed  by  a  majority  of  the 
entire  Senate.  It  entitled  the  friends  of  the  Election  Bill  to 
be  assured  that  it  would  be  brought  to  a  vote  and  passed  at 
ihe  short  session,  if  there  were  then  a  majority  in  its  favor. 
This  is  the  agreement,  of  which  I  have  the  original,  with 
the  original  signatures  annexed,  in  my  possession. 


"We  will  vote:  1.  To  take  up  for  consideration  on  the 
first  day  of  the  next  session  the  Federal  Election  Bill,  and  to 
keep  it  before  the  Senate  to  the  exclusion  of  other  legislative 
business,  until  it  shall  be  disposed  of  by  a  vote.  2.  To 
make  such  provision  as  to  the  time  and  manner  of  taking 
the  vote  as  shall  be  decided,  by  a  majority  of  the  Eepublican 
Senators,  to  be  necessary  in  order  to  secure  such  vote,  either 
by  a  general  rule  like  that  proposed  by  Mr.  Hoar,  and  now 
pending  before  the  committee  on  rules,  or  by  special  rule  of 
the  same  purport,  applicable  only  to  the  Election  Bill. ' ' 

At  the  next  December  session  the  Bill  was  taken  up  for 
consideration  and,  after  a  few  days'  debate,  there  was  a 
motion  to  lay  it  aside.  Since  the  measure  had  been  first 
introduced,  the  sentiment  in  certain  parts  of  the  country 
in  favor  of  the  free  coinage  of  silver  had  been  strengthened. 
Several  of  the  Eepublican  Senators  were  among  its  most 
zealous  advocates.  There  was  a  motion  to  lay  aside  the 
Election  Bill  which  was  adopted  by  a  bare  majority— the 
Democrats  voting  for  it  and  several  of  the  Silver  Eepubli- 
can Senators,  so-called.  All  but  one  of  these  had  signed 
their  names  to  the  promise  I  have  printed.  I  never  have 
known  by  what  process  of  reasoning  they  reconciled  their 
action  with  their  word.  But  I  know  that  in  heated  political 
strife  men  of  honor,  even  men  of  ability,  sometimes  deceive 
themselves  by  a  casuistic  reasoning  which  would  not  con- 
vince them  at  other  times. 

The  Election  Bill  deeply  excited  the  whole  country.  Its 
supporters  were  denounced  by  the  Democratic  papers 
everywhere.  North  and  South,  with  a  bitterness  which  I 
hardly  knew  before  that  the  English  language  was  capable 
of  expressing.  My  mail  was  crowded  with  letters,  many 
of  them  anonymous,  the  rest  generally  quite  as  anonymous, 
even  if  the  writer's  name  were  signed,  denouncing  me  with 
all  the  vigor  and  all  the  scurrility  of  which  the  writers  were 
capable.  I  think  this  is  the  last  great  outbreak  of  anger 
which  has  spread  throughout  the  American  people. 

I  got,  however,  a  good  deal  of  consolation  from  the 
stanch  friendship  and  support  of  the  Eepublicans  of  Mas- 


sacliusetts,  which  never  failed  me  during  the  very  height 
of  this  storm.  Whittier  sent  me  a  volume  of  poetry  which 
he  had  just  published,  with  the  inscription  written  on  the 
blank  leaf  in  his  own  hand,  "To  George  F.  Hoar,  with  the 
love  of  his  old  friend,  John  G.  Whittier. "  I  think  I  would 
have  gone  through  ten  times  as  much  objurgation  as  I  had 
to  encounter  for  those  few  words. 

There  has  never  since  been  an  attempt  to  protect  National 
elections  by  National  authority.  The  last  vestige  of  the 
National  statute  for  securing  purity  of  elections  was  re- 
pealed in  President  Cleveland's  second  Administration,  un- 
der the  lead  of  Senator  Hill  of  New  York.  I  have  reflected 
very  carefully  as  to  my  duty  in  that  matter.  I  am  clearly 
of  the  opinion  that  Congress  has  power  to  regulate  the 
matter  of  elections  of  Members  of  the  House  of  Eepresen- 
tatives  and  to  make  suitable  provisions  for  honest  elections 
and  an  honest  ascertainment  of  the  result,  and  that  such 
legislation  ought  to  be  enacted  and  kept  on  the  statute  book 
and  enforced.  But  such  legislation,  to  be  of  any  value 
whatever,  must  be  permanent.  If  it  only  be  maintained 
in  force  while  one  political  party  is  in  power,  and  repealed 
when  its  antagonist  comes  in,  and  is  to  be  constant  matter 
of  political  strife  and  sectional  discussion,  it  is  better,  in 
my  judgment,  to  abandon  it  than  to  keep  up  an  incessant, 
fruitless  struggle.  It  is  like  legislation  to  prohibit  by  law 
the  selling  of  liquor.  I  believe  that  it  would  be  wise  to 
prohibit  the  sale  of  liquor,  with  the  exceptions  usually  made 
in  prohibitory  laws.  But  if  we  are  to  have  in  any  State, 
as  we  have  had  in  so  many  States,  a  prohibitory  law  one 
year,  another  with  different  provisions  the  next,  a  license 
law  the  next,  and  the  difficulty  all  the  time  in  enforcing 
any  of  them,  it  is  better  to  give  the  attempt  at  prohibition 
up  and  to  adopt  a  local  option,  or  high  license,  or  some 
other  policy.  In  other  words,  it  is  better  to  have  the  second 
best  law  kept  permanently  on  the  statute  book  than  to  have 
the  best  law  there  half  the  time. 

So,  after  Senator  Hill's  repealing  act  got  through  the 
Senate,  I  announced  that,  so  far  as  I  was  concerned,  and  so 
far  as  I  had  the  right  to  express  the  opinion  of  Northern 


Republicans,  I  thought  the  attempt  to  secure  the  rights  of 
the  colored  people  by  National  legislation  would  be  aban- 
doned until  there  were  a  considerable  change  of  opinion 
in  the  country,  and  especially  in  the  South,  and  until  it  had 
ceased  to  become  matter  of  party  strife.  To  that  announce- 
ment. Senator  Chandler  of  New  Hampshire,  who  had  been 
one  of  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  the  National  laws, 
expressed  his  assent.  That  statement  has  been  repeated 
once  or  twice  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  So  far  as  I  know, 
no  Republican  has  dissented  from  it.  Certainly  there  has 
been  no  Bill  for  that  purpose  introduced  in  either  House 
of  Congress,  or  proposed,  so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  Repub- 
lican press,  or  in  any  Republican  platform  since. 

The  question  upon  which  the  policy  of  all  National  elec- 
tion laws  depends  is.  At  whose  will  do  you  hold  your  right 
to  be  an  American  citizen?  What  power  can  you  invoke  if 
that  right  be  withheld  from  youf  If  you  hold  the  right  at 
will  of  your  State,  then  you  can  invoke  no  power  but  the 
State  for  its  vindication.  If  you  hold  it  at  the  will  of  the 
Nation,  as  expressed  by  the  people  of  the  whole  Nation 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  then  you  are 
entitled  to  invoke  the  power  of  the  United  States  for  its 
enforcement  whenever  necessary.  If  you  hold  it  at  the 
will  of  the  white  Democracy  of  any  State  or  neighborhood 
then,  as  unfortunately  seems  to  be  the  case  in  a  good  many 
States,  you  will  be  permitted  to  exercise  it  only  if  you  are 
a  white  man,  and  then  only  so  long  as  you  are  a  Democrat. 

I  have  had  during  my  whole  life  to  deal  with  that  most 
difficult  of  all  political  problems,  the  relation  to  each  other, 
in  a  Republic,  of  men  of  different  races.  It  is  a  question 
which  has  vexed  the  American  people  from  the  beginning 
of  their  history.  It  is,  if  I  am  not  much  mistaken,  to  vex 
them  still  more  hereafter.  First  the  Indian,  then  the  Negro, 
then  the  Chinese,  now  the  Filipino,  disturb  our  peace.  In 
the  near  future  will  come  the  Italian  and  the  Pole  and  the 
great  population  of  Asia,  with  whom  we  are  soon  to  be 
brought  into  most  intimate  and  close  relation. 

In  my  opinion,  in  all  these  race  difficulties  and  troubles, 
the  fault  has  been  with  the  Anglo-Saxon.    Undoubtedly  the 


Indian  lias  been  a  savage ;  the  Negro  has  been  a  savage ;  the 
lower  order  of  Chinamen  have  been  gross  and  sometimes 
bestial.  The  inhabitants  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  in  their 
natural  rights,  which,  as  we  had  solemnly  declared  to  be  a 
self-evident  truth,  were  theirs  beyond  question,  have  com- 
mitted acts  of  barbarism.  But  in  every  case,  these  inferior 
and  alien  races,  if  they  had  been  dealt  with  justly,  in  my 
opinion,  would  have  been  elevated  by  quiet,  peaceful  and 
Christian  conduct  on  our  part  to  a  higher  plane,  and  brought 
out  of  their  barbarism.  The  white  man  has  been  the 

I  have  no  desire  to  recall  the  story  of  the  methods  by 
which  the  political  majorities,  consisting  in  many  communi- 
ties largely  of  negroes  and  led  by  immigrants  from  the 
North,  were  subdued. 

This  is  not  a  sectional  question. 

It  is  not  a  race  question.  The  suffrage  was  conferred  on 
the  negro  by  the  Southern  States  themselves.  They  can 
always  make  their  own  rules.  If  the  negro  be  ignorant,  you 
may  define  ignorance  and  disfranchise  that.  If  the  negro 
be  vicious,  you  may  define  vice  and  disfranchise  that.  If 
the  negro  be  poor,  you  may  define  poverty  and  disfranchise 
that.  If  the  negro  be  idle,  you  may  define  idleness  and  dis- 
franchise that.  If  the  negro  be  lazy,  you  may  define  lazi- 
ness and  disfranchise  that.  If  you  will  only  disfranchise 
him  for  the  qualities  which  you  say  unfit  him  to  vote  and 
not  for  his  race  or  the  color  of  his  skin  there  is  no  Consti- 
tutional obstacle  in  your  way. 

So  it  was  not  wholly  a  race  or  a  color  problem.  It  was 
largely  a  question  of  party  supremacy.  In  three  states, 
Alabama,  South  Carolina  and  Florida,  white  Democrats 
charged  each  other  with  stifling  the  voice  of  the  majority  by 
fraudulent  election  processes,  and  in  Alabama  they  claimed 
that  a  majority  of  white  men  were  disfranchised  by  a  false 
count  of  negro  votes  in  the  black  belt. 

It  was  not  wholly  unnatural  that  the  men  who,  in  dealing 
with  each  other,  were  men  of  scrupulous  honor  and  of  un- 
doubted courage  should  have  brought  themselves  to  do  such 
things,  or  at  any  rate  to  screen  and  sympathize  with  the 


more  hot-headed  men  who  did  them.  The  proof  in  the 
public  records  of  those  public  crimes  is  abundant.  With 
the  exception  of  Eeverdy  Johnson  of  Maryland  there  is  no 
record  of  a  single  manly  remonstrance,  or  expression  of 
disapproval  from  the  lips  of  any  prominent  Southern  man. 
But  they  had  persuaded  themselves  to  believe  that  a  con- 
test for  political  power  with  a  party  largely  composed  of 
negroes  was  a  contest  for  their  civilization  itself.  They 
thought  it  like  a  fight  for  life  with  a  pack  of  wolves.  In 
some  parts  of  the  South  there  were  men  as  ready  to  mur- 
der a  negro  who  tried  to  get  an  office  as  to  kill  a  fox 
they  found  prowling  about  a  hen  roost.  These  brave  and 
haughty  men  who  had  governed  the  country  for  half  a  cen- 
tury, who  had  held  the  power  of  the  United  States  at  bay 
for  four  years,  who  had  never  doffed  their  hats  to  any 
prince  or  noble  on  earth,  even  in  whose  faults  or  vices  there 
was  nothing  mean  or  petty,  never  having  been  suspected  of 
corruption,  who  as  Macaulay  said  of  the  younger  Pitt,  "If 
in  an  hour  of  ambition  they  might  have  been  tempted  to 
ruin  their  country,  never  would  have  stooped  to  pilfer  from 
her,"  could  not  brook  the  sight  of  a  Legislature  made  up 
of  ignorant  negroes  who  had  been  their  own  slaves,  and  of 
venal  carpet-baggers.  They  could  not  endure  that  men, 
some  of  whom  had  been  bought  and  sold  like  chattels  in  the 
time  of  slavery,  and  others  ready  to  sell  themselves,  al- 
though they  were  freemen,  should  sit  to  legislate  for  their 
States  with  their  noble  and  brave  history.  I  myself, 
although  I  have  always  maintained,  and  do  now,  the  equal 
right  of  all  men  of  whatever  color  or  race  to  a  share  in  the 
government  of  the  country,  felt  a  thrill  of  sadness  when  I 
saw  the  Legislature  of  Louisiana  in  session  in  the  winter 
of  1873. 

There  was  a  good  deal  to  provoke  them  also  in  the  char- 
acter of  some  of  the  Northern  men  who  had  gone  to  the 
South  to  take  an  active  part  in  political  affairs.  Some  of 
them  were  men  of  the  highest  character  and  honor,  actuated 
by  pure  and  unselfish  motives.  If  they  had  been  met  cor- 
dially by  the  communities  where  they  took  up  their  abode 
they  would  have  brought  to  them  a  most  valuable  quality  of 


citizenship.  If  Northern  immigration  and  Northern  capital 
had  been  welcomed  at  the  South  it  would  have  had  as 
helpful  an  influence  as  it  had  in  California  and  Oregon. 
But  the  Southern  men  treated  them  all  alike.  I  incline  to 
think  that  a  large  number  of  the  men  who  got  political  office 
in  the  South,  when  the  men  who  had  taken  part  in  the  Ee- 
bellion  were  still  disfranchised,  and  the  Republicans  were 
still  in  power,  were  of  a  character  that  would  not  have  been 
tolerated  in  public  office  in  the  North.  General  Willard 
Warner  of  Alabama,  a  brave  Union  soldier,  a  Eepublican 
Senator  from  that  State,  was  one  of  the  best  and  bravest 
men  who  ever  sat  in  that  body.  Governor  Packard  of 
Louisiana  was  I  believe  a  wise  and  honest  man.  But  in 
general  it  was  impossible  not  to  feel  a  certain  sympathy  with 
a  people,  who  whatever  else  had  been  their  faults  never 
were  guilty  of  corruption  or  meanness,  or  the  desire  to 
make  money  out  of  public  office,  in  the  intolerable  loathing 
which  they  felt  for  these  strangers  who  had  taken  posses- 
sion of  the  high  places  in  their  States. 

President  Grant  gave  the  influence  and  authority  of  his 
Administration  toward  maintaining  in  power  the  lawfully 
chosen  Republican  State  Governments.  But  in  spite  of  all 
he  could  do  they  had  all  been  overthrown  but  two  when  the 
Presidential  election  was  held  in  1876.  Those  two  were 
South  Carolina  and  Louisiana.  The  people  of  those  two 
States  had  chosen  Republican  Governors  at  the  State  elec- 
tion held  on  the  same  day  with  the  election  of  the  President. 
But  these  Governors  could  not  hold  their  power  twenty- 
four  hours  without  the  support  of  the  National  Administra- 
tion. When  that  was  withdrawn  the  negro  and  carpet-bag 
majority  was  powerless  as  a  flock  of  sheep  before  a  pack 
of  wolves  to  resist  their  brave  and  unscrupulous  Democratic 
enemy,  however  inferior  the  latter  in  numbers. 

In  attempting  to  give  a  dispassionate  account  of  the  his- 
tory of  this  great  question  which  has  entered  so  deeply  into 
the  political  and  social  life  of  the  American  people  almost 
from  the  beginning,  it  is  hard  to  measure  the  influence  of 
race  prejudice,  of  sectional  feeling,  and  of  that  other  power- 
ful motive,  eagerness  for  party  supremacy. 


Suffrage  was  conferred  upon  the  negro  by  the  Southern 
States  themselves.  Under  the  Constitution  every  State  can 
prescribe  its  own  qualifications  for  suffrage,  with  the  single 
exception  that  no  State  can  deny  or  abridge  the  right  of  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  to  vote  on  account  of  race,  color 
or  previous  condition  of  servitude. 

But  I  am  bound  to  say,  indeed  it  is  but  to  repeat  what 
I  have  said  many  times,  that  my  long  conflict  with  their 
leaders  has  impressed  me  with  an  ever-increasing  admira- 
tion of  the  great  and  high  qualities  of  our  Southern  people. 
I  said  at  Chicago  in  February,  1903,  what  I  said,  in  sub- 
stance, twenty  years  before  in  Faneuil  Hall,  and  at  about 
the  same  time  in  the  Senate : 

' '  Having  said  what  I  thought  to  say  on  this  question,  per- 
haps I  may  be  indulged  in  adding  that  although  my  life, 
politically  and  personally,  has  been  a  life  of  almost  constant 
strife  with  the  leaders  of  the  Southern  people,  yet  as  I  grow 
older  I  have  learned,  not  only  to  respect  and  esteem,  but  to 
love  the  great  qualities  which  belong  to  my  fellow  citizens 
of  the  Southern  States.  They  are  a  noble  race.  We  may 
well  take  pattern  from  them  in  some  of  the  great  virtues 
which  make  up  the  strength,  as  they  make  the  glory,  of 
Free  States.  Their  love  of  home;  their  chivalrous  respect 
for  woman;  their  courage;  their  delicate  sense  of  honor; 
their  constancy,  which  can  abide  by  an  opinion  or  a  pur- 
pose or  an  interest  of  their  States  through  adversity  and 
through  prosperity,  through  the  years  and  through  the  gen- 
erations, are  things  by  which  the  people  of  the  more  mer- 
curial North  may  take  a  lesson.  And  there  is  another 
thing— covetousness,  corruption,  the  low  temptation  of 
money  has  not  yet  found  any  place  in  our  Southern  politics. 

"Now,  my  friends,  we  cannot  atford  to  live,  we  don't  wish 
to  live,  and  we  will  not  live,  in  a  state  of  estrangement  from 
a  people  who  possess  these  qualities.  They  are  our  kin- 
dred ;  bone  of  our  bone ;  flesh  of  our  flesh ;  blood  of  our  blood, 
and  whatever  may  be  the  temporary  error  of  any  Southern 
State  I,  for  one,  if  I  have  a  right  to  speak  for  Massachusetts, 
say  to  her,  'Entreat  me  not  to  leave  thee,  nor  to  return  from 


following  after  thee.  For  where  thou  goest  I  will  go,  and 
where  thou  stayest,  I  will  stay  also.  And  thy  people  shall 
be  my  people,  and  thy  God  my  God. ' ' ' 

In  July,  1898,  I  was  invited  to  deliver  an  address  before 
the  Virginia  Bar  Association.  I  was  received  by  that  com- 
pany of  distinguished  gentlemen  with  a  hospitality  like  that 
I  had  found  at  Charleston  the  year  before.  Certainly  the 
old  estrangements  are  gone.  I  took  occasion  in  my  address 
to  appeal  to  the  Virginia  Bar  to  give  the  weight  of  their 
great  influence  in  sustaining  the  dignity  and  authority  of 
the  Supreme  Court,  in  spite  of  their  disappointment  at  some 
of  its  decisions  of  Constitutional  questions.  They  received 
what  I  had  to  say,  although  they  knew  I  differed  from 
them  on  some  of  the  gravest  matters  which  concerned  the 
State,  and  had  been  an  anti-slavery  man  from  my  youth, 
with  a  respect  and  courtesy  which  left  nothing  to  be  desired. 
At  the  banquet  which  followed  the  address,  this  toast  was 
given  by  William  Wirt  Henry,  a  grandson  of  Patrick  Henry, 
himself  one  of  the  foremost  lawyers  and  historians  of  the 
South.  I  prize  very  highly  the  original  which  I  have  in  his 

' '  Massachusetts  and  Virginia. 

"Foremost  in  planting  the  English  Colonies  in  America; 
"Foremost  in  resisting  British  tyranny; 
"Foremost  in  the  Eevolution  which  won  our  Indepen- 
dence and  established  our  free  institutions; 

' '  May  the  memories  of  the  past  be  the  bond  of  the  future. ' ' 

My  own  endeavor,  during  my  long  public  life,  has  been  to 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence, 
which  declares  the  right  of  every  man  to  political  equality 
by  virtue  of  his  manhood,  and  of  every  people  to  self-gov- 
ernment by  virtue  of  its  character  as  a  people.  This  our 
fathers  meant  to  lay  down  as  the  fundamental  law  of  States 
and  of  the  United  States,  having  its  steadfast  and  immov- 
able foundation  in  the  law  of  God.  It  was  never  their  pur- 
pose to  declare  that  ignorance  or  vice  or  want  of  experience 
of  the  institutions  of  a  country  should  not  disqualify  men 
from  a  share  in  the  Government.     Those  things  they  meant 


to  leave  to  the  discretion  of  the  power,  whether  State  or  Na- 
tional, which  was  to  prescribe  the  qualifications  of  suffrage. 
But  they  did  not  mean  that  the  accident  of  birthplace,  or  the 
accident  of  race,  or  the  accident  of  color,  should  enter  into 
the  question  at  all.  To  this  doctrine  I  have,  in  my  humble 
way,  endeavored  to  adhere.  In  dealing  with  the  Chinese,  or 
any  class  of  immigrants,  I  would  prescribe  as  strict  a  rule  as 
the  strictest  for  ascertaining  whether  the  immigrant  meant 
in  good  faith  to  be  an  American  citizen,  whether  he  meant  to 
end  his  life  here,  to  bring  his  wife  and  children  with  him, 
whether  he  loved  American  institutions,  whether  he  was  fit  to 
understand  the  political  problems  with  which  the  people  had 
to  deal,  whether  he  had  individual  worth,  or  health  of  body 
or  mind.  I  would  make,  if  need  be,  ten  years  or  twenty  years, 
as  the  necessary  period  of  residence  for  naturalization. 

I  would  deal  with  the  Negro  or  the  German  or  the  French- 
man or  the  Italian  on  the  same  principle.  But  the  one  thing 
I  have  never  consented  to  is  that  a  man  shall  be  kept  out  of 
this  country,  or  kept  in  a  position  of  inferiority,  while  he  is 
in  it,  because  of  his  color,  because  of  his  birthplace,  or  be- 
cause of  his  race. 

One  matter  in  connection  with  the  management  of  the 
Elections  Bill  I  have  never  been  able  to  think  of  since  with- 
out a  shudder.  The  Democrats  in  the  Senate,  led  by  Mr. 
Gorman,  the  most  skilful  of  their  leaders,  endeavored  to 
defeat  the  bill  by  the  tactics  of  delay.  If  the  debate  could 
be  prolonged  so  that  it  was  impossible  to  get  a  vote  with- 
out the  loss  of  the  great  Appropriation  Bills,  or  some  of 
them,  the  bill,  of  course,  must  be  laid  aside.  So  the  Re- 
publicans, on  the  other  hand,  as  is  usual  in  such  cases,  re- 
frained from  debate,  leaving  their  antagonists  to  take  up 
the  time.  Every  afternoon  at  about  five  o  'clock  some  Dem- 
ocrat would  come  to  me  saying  that  he  was  to  take  the  floor, 
but  that  he  did  not  feel  well,  or  was  not  quite  ready 
with  some  material,  and  ask  me  as  a  personal  favor  to  let 
the  matter  go  over  until  the  next  morning.  This  happened 
so  often  that  I  became  satisfied  it  was  a  concerted 
scheme,  and  made  up  my  mind  that  I  would  not  yield  to 
such  a  request  again. 


But  one  afternoon  Senator  Wilson  of  Maryland,  a  quiet 
and  most  estimable  gentleman,  whom  I  had  known  very  well, 
and  for  whom  I  had  a  high  regard,  came  to  me  and  said  he 
felt  quite  unwell ;  he  could  go  on  that  afternoon,  if  I  insisted 
upon  it;  but  he  would  like  much  better  to  put  off  speaking 
till  the  next  day.  I  was  just  beginning  my  answer  to  the 
effect  that  I  had  heard  that  so  often  that  I  had  determined  I 
would  not  yield  again  to  the  request.  But  I  said  to  myself. 
It  cannot  be  possible  that  this  man  would  undertake  to  de- 
ceive me.  He  is  a  gentleman  of  high  character,  absolutely 
honorable  and  incapable  of  falsehood.  So  I  answered.  Of 
course,  Mr.  "Wilson,  if  you  are  ill,  I  will  consent  to  your 
desire.  Mr.  "Wilson  made  his  speech  the  next  day.  This 
was  December  15.  A  few  weeks  after,  on  the  24th  of  Feb- 
ruary, Mr.  Wilson  died  suddenly  of  heart  disease.  It  was 
an  affection  of  which  he  had  been  conscious  for  some  years, 
and  which  he  had  for  some  time  expected  would  cause 
sudden  death.  I  dare  say  if  he  had  been  compelled  to  pro- 
ceed with  his  speech  that  day  it  would  have  been  fatal.  In 
that  case  my  life  would  have  been  embittered  by  the 

We  had  a  meeting  of  the  Republican  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee, for  consultation,  before  we  reported  the  Bill.  Mr. 
Evarts,  while  he  approved  the  principle  of  the  measure, 
shared  very  strongly  my  own  hesitation,  caused  by  the  fear 
of  the  political  effect  of  the  defeat  of  a  measure  likely  to 
excite  so  much  angry  strife  throughout  the  country.  After 
hearing  the  opinion  of  those  who  favored  going  on  with 
the  Bill,  Mr.  Evarts  said:  "I  spent  a  Sunday  with  Judge 
Kent  on  the  Hudson  a  good  many  years  ago,  with  several 
New  York  lawyers.  We  all  went  to  the  Episcopal  church 
in  the  forenoon,  and  dined  with  the  Judge  after  church. 
During  the  service  one  of  the  company  kept  far  behind  in 
the  responses,  which  annoyed  the  Judge  a  good  deal.  At 
dinner  he  broke  out,  'Davis,  why  can't  you  descend  into 
hell  with  the  rest  of  the  congregation?'  I  will  descend  into 
hell  with  the  rest  of  the  congregation." 

Mr.  Evarts  made  the  descent  and  stood  loyally  by  the 
measure  in  the  debate  to  the  best  of  his  great  ability. 



When  I  entered  tlie  Senate,  I  found  one  very  serious  in- 
convenience and  one  very  great  public  danger  in  existing 

The  great  inconvenience  grew  out  of  tlie  fact  that  by 
the  Constitution  the  session  of  Congress  must  end  on  the 
fourth  of  March  every  other  year.  A  third  of  the  Senate 
goes  out  at  the  same  time,  and  every  fourth  year  the  Presi- 
dential term  ends.  That  session  of  Congress  meets,  accord- 
ing to  our  usage,  on  the  first  Monday  of  December.  The 
meeting  cannot  well  come  much  earlier  without  preventing 
the  members  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  from  taking  part 
in  the  political  campaign,  where  they  are  justly  expected 
by  the  people  to  give  an  account  of  their  stewardship,  and 
to  discuss  the  questions  to  be  considered  by  the  people  in 
the  election.  So  there  are  but  thirteen  weeks  in  which  to 
pass  fourteen  or  fifteen  great  Appropriation  Bills,  making 
it  impossible  to  deal  with  any  other  great  subject  except  by 
unanimous  consent.  The  result  is  also  that  the  Appropria- 
tion Bills  are  put  in  the  power  of  a  very  few  men  indeed. 
The  House  has  to  submit  to  the  dictation  of  the  Appropria- 
tion Committee,  and  cannot  be  allowed  to  debate,  or  even 
to  have  a  separate  vote  on  matters  which  nearly  the  whole 
House  would  like  to  accomplish,  if  there  were  time,  but 
which  the  Chairman  of  the  Appropriation  Committee,  who 
is  usually  omnipotent  with  his  associates,  may  happen  to 
dislike.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Senate,  where  there  is 
no  cloture  rule,  any  single  member,  or  at  best,  a  very  few 
members,  can  defeat  an  Appropriation  Bill  and  compel  an 
extra  session  by  exercising  their  right  of  uncontrolled 



Besides;  people  from  all  parts  of  the  country  like  to 
attend  the  inauguration  of  a  new  President.  The  fourth  of 
March  is  at  an  inclement  season,  and  is  apt  to  be  an  in- 
clement day,  and  it  may  come  on  Saturday  or  Sunday  or 
Monday.  So  persons  who  attend  may  be  obliged  to  be  away 
from  home  over  Sunday,  and  a  great  many  persons  have  lost 
their  health  or  life  from  exposure  in  witnessing  the  inaugu- 

I  prepared  a  Constitutional  amendment  providing  that 
the  inauguration  should  take  place  on  the  last  Thursday  in 
April.  I  have  reported  this  to  the  Senate  several  times.  It 
has  always  passed  that  body  with  scarcely  a  dissenting 
vote,  on  debate  and  explanation.  If  that  had  been  adopted, 
if  the  session  were  to  begin  in  the  middle  of  November,  a 
week  after  the  November  elections— which  could  be  accom- 
plished by  an  act  of  Congress,— instead  of  thirteen  weeks, 
to  which  the  session  is  now  limited,  there  would  be  a  session 
of  twenty-three  or  twenty-four  weeks.  This  would  give 
time  for  the  consideration  of  such  legislation  as  might  be 
needful.  It  would  probably,  also,  permit  the  shortening 
somewhat  of  the  long  session,  which  not  infrequently  ex- 
tends to  July  or  August.  But  the  plan  has  never  found 
much  favor  in  the  House.  Speaker  Reed,  when  he  was  in 
power,  said  rather  contemptuously,  that  "Congress  sits 
altogether  too  long  as  it  is.  The  less  we  have  of  Congress, 
the  better." 

The  public  danger  is  found  in  the  fact  that  there  is  no  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  for  the  case  where  the  President- 
elect dies  before  inauguration.     The  provision  is : 

"In  case  of  the  Eemoval  of  the  President  from  Office,  or 
of  his  Death,  Eesignation,  or  Inability  to  discharge  the 
Powers  and  Duties  of  the  said  Office,  the  same  shall  devolve 
on  the  Vice-President,  and  the  Congress  may  by  Law  pro- 
vide for  the  Case  of  Removal,  Death,  Resignation  or  In- 
ability, both  of  the  President  and  Vice-President,  declaring 
what  Officer  shall  then  act  as  President,  and  such  Officer 
shall  act  accordingly,  until  the  Disability  shall  be  removed, 
or  a  President  shall  be  elected." 


Strictly  construed,  it  is  only  in  the  case  of  the  death, 
inability,  etc.,  of  a  President,  that  a  Vice-President  can  suc- 
ceed, or  in  case  of  the  death,  inability,  etc.,  of  the  President 
and  Vice-President  both,  that  Congress  has  power  to  declare 
on  whom  the  office  shall  devolve.  It  must  be  a  President 
and  Vice-President  that  die;  not  merely  a  President  and 
Vice-President-elect.  That  this  is  not  an  imaginary  danger 
is  shown  by  the  fact  of  the  well-known  scheme  to  assassinate 
Lincoln  on  his  way  to  the  seat  of  the  Government,  and  also 
by  the  fact  that  either  the  President  or  the  Vice-President 
has  died  in  office  so  many  times  in  the  recollection  of  men 
now  living.  President  Harrison  died  during  his  term ;  Pres- 
ident Taylor  died  during  his  term;  Vice-President  King 
died  during  Pierce's  term;  Vice-President  Wilson  died  dur- 
ing Grant's  term;  President  Garfield  died  during  his  term; 
Vice-President  Hendricks  died  during  Cleveland's  term; 
Vice-President  Hobart  died  during  McKinley's  term,  and 
President  McKinley  during  his  own  second  term.  So 
within  sixty  years  eight  of  these  high  officials  have  died  in 
office ;  five  of  them  within  thirty  years ;  four  of  them  within 
twenty  years. 

I  have  also  drawn  and  repeatedly  procured  the  passage 
through  the  Senate  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to 
protect  the  country  against  this  danger.  That  also  has 
failed  of  attention  in  the  House.  I  suppose  it  is  likely  that 
nothing  will  be  done  about  the  matter  until  the  event  shall 
happen,  as  is  not  unlikely,  that  both  President  and  Vice- 
President-elect  shall  become  incapacitated  between  the  elec- 
tion and  the  time  for  entering  upon  office. 

I  was  more  successful  in  providing  against  another  situa- 
tion that  might  prove  quite  awkward.  In  "Washington's 
Administration  Congress  exercised,  as  far  as  it  could,  the 
power  given  by  the  Constitution  to  provide  against  the  death 
or  disability  of  both  the  President  and  Vice-President,  if  it 
should  happen  after  they  had  entered  upon  office,  as  follows : 

"In  case  of  removal,  death,  resignation  or  inability  of 
both  the  President  and  the  Vice-President  of  the  United 
States,  the  President  of  the  Senate,  or,  if  there  is  none,  then 


the  Speaker  of  the  House,  for  the  time  being,  shall  act  as 
President,  until  the  disability  is  removed  or  a  President 
elected. ' ' 

There  is  a  tradition  that  when  this  awkward  arrange- 
ment was  made,  the  proposition  that  the  Secretary  of  State 
should  succeed  in  the  case  of  such  vacancy  was  defeated  by 
the  suggestion  that  Mr.  Jefferson  had  too  much  power  and 
consequence  already.  The  arrangement  seemed  to  me 
clearly  objectionable.  In  the  first  place  the  Vice-President, 
who,  it  is  supposed,  has  died  or  become  incapable,  is  the 
Constitutional  President  of  the  Senate.  The  Senate,  under 
the  practice  and  construction  of  its  power  which  prevailed 
down  to  a  very  recent  period,  only  elected  a  President  pro 
tempore  when  the  Vice-President  vacated  the  chair.  His 
office  terminated  when  the  Vice-President  resumed  it,  and 
there  was  no  Constitutional  obligation  on  the  Senate  to  elect 
a  President  pro  tempore  at  all.  So  it  was  quite  uncertain 
whether  there  would  be  a  President  pro  tempore  of  the  Sen- 
ate at  any  particular  time,  especially  when  the  Senate  was 
not  in  session.  There  have  been  two  instances  where  the 
President  of  the  Senate  has  refused  to  vacate  the  chair,  for 
the  reason  that  he  did  not  desire  to  have  a  President  pro 
tempore  elected,  and  thereby  have  an  honor  conferred  on  a 
member  of  another  party  than  his  own.  That  happened 
once  in  the  case  of  Vice-President  Gerry,  and  again,  within 
my  personal  knowledge,  in  the  case  of  Vice-President 
Arthur.  When  he  succeeded  to  the  Presidency  there  was 
no  President  of  the  Senate  who  would  have  taken  his  place 
if  he  too  had  happened  to  be  assassinated.  So  of  the 
Speaker  of  the  House.  For  a  great  many  years  the  first 
session  of  a  newly-elected  House  of  Representatives  has 
begun  in  December.  There  is  no  Speaker  from  the  previous 
fourth  of  March  until  that  time.  Beside,  the  Senate,  whose 
members  hold  office  for  six  years  and  of  whom  only  one- 
third  goes  out  every  two  years,  is  very  apt  to  have  a  ma- 
jority whose  political  opinions  are  opposed  to  those  which 
have  prevailed  in  the  last  Presidential  election.  So,  if  the 
President  and  Vice-President  both  die  before  taking  their 


seats,  the  President  of  the  Senate  is  quite  likely  to  bring 
into  the  Executive  Office  opinions  which  the  people  have 
just  rejected  in  the  election. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Secretary  of  State  is  always  a 
member  of  the  party  that  has  prevailed  in  the  last  election, 
and  is  usually  the  member  of  the  party,  next  to  the  President 
himself,  highest  in  its  confidence.  Our  Secretaries  of  State, 
with  rare  exceptions,  have  been  among  the  very  ablest  public 
men  of  the  country.  Among  them  have  been  Timothy  Pick- 
ering, John  Marshall,  James  Madison,  James  Monroe,  John 
Quincy  Adams,  Henry  Clay,  Martin  Van  Buren,  Edward 
Livingston,  Louis  McLane,  John  Forsyth,  Daniel  Webster, 
John  C.  Calhoun,  James  Buchanan,  John  M.  Clayton, 
Edward  Everett,  William  L.  Marcy,  Lewis  Cass,  William 
H.  Seward,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Hamilton  Fish,  William 
M.  Evarts,  James  G.  Blaine,  Thomas  F.  Bayard,  John  Sher- 
man, and  John  Hay.  These  men,  with  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion, have  been  among  the  very  foremost  statesmen  of  their 
time.  Several  of  them  have  been  Presidents  of  the  United 
States,  and  a  good  many  more  of  them  have  been  prominent 
candidates  for  the  Presidency.  On  the  other  hand,  the  list 
of  Presidents  of  the  Senate  contains  few  names  of  any  con- 
siderable distinction.  Another  objection  to  the  arrangement 
was  the  fact  that  the  President  of  the  Senate  and  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  might  be  changed  at  the  will  of  the  body  that 
elected  them.  So  the  acting  President  might  be  displaced 
at  the  will  of  a  political  body.  There  is  a  good  deal  of 
reason,  also,  for  claiming  that  if  Congress  declare  that  the 
officer  should  act  as  President,  he  must  discharge  the  duties 
of  his  office  and  the  duties  of  President  at  the  same  time,  a 
burden  which  would  be  very  hard  for  one  man  to  support. 
Accordingly  I  drew  and  introduced  the  existing  law,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

"Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  in  case  of  removal,  death,  resig- 
nation or  inability  of  both  the  President  and  Vice-President 
of  the  United  States,  the  Secretary  of  State,  or  if  there  be 
none,  or  in  case  of  his  removal,  death,  resignation  or  in- 
ability, then  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  if  there  be 


none,  or  in  ease  of  his  removal,  death,  resignation  or  in- 
ability, then  the  Secretary  of  War,  or  if  there  be  none,  or  in 
case  of  his  removal,  death,  resignation  or  inability,  then  the 
Attorney-General,  or  if  there  be  none,  or  in  ease  of  his  re- 
moval, death,  resignation  or  inability,  then  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  shall  act  as  President  until  the  disability  of  the 
President  or  Vice-President  is  removed  or  a  President  shall 
be  elected : 

"Provided,  That  whenever  the  powers  and  duties  of  the 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States  shall  devolve  upon 
any  of  the  persons  named  herein,  if  Congress  be  not  then 
in  session,  or  if  it  would  not  meet  in  accordance  with  law 
within  twenty  days  thereafter,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
person  upon  whom  said  powers  and  duties  shall  devolve  to 
issue  a  proclamation  convening  Congress  in  extraordinary 
session,  giving  twenty  days '  notice  of  time  of  meeting. 

"Sec.  2.  That  the  preceding  section  shall  only  be  held 
to  describe  and  to  apply  to  such  officers  as  shall  have  been 
appointed  by  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate  to  the 
offices  therein  named,  and  such  as  are  eligible  to  the  office  of 
President  under  the  Constitution,  and  not  under  impeach- 
ment by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States 
at  the  time  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  office  shall  devolve 
upon  them  respectively. 

"Sec.  3.  That  sections  one  hundred  and  forty-sis,  one 
hundred  and  forty-seven,  one  hundred  and  forty-eight,  one 
hundred  and  forty-nine  and  one  hundred  and  fifty  of  the 
Revised  Statutes  are  hereby  repealed  {January  19,  1886)." 

There  was  some  objection  to  it  at  first.  It  was  resisted  very 
strenuously  to  the  end  by  Senator  Edmunds.  But  after  full 
discussion  it  passed  the  Senate  with  few  dissenting  votes. 

In  the  House  Mr.  Eeed,  afterward  Speaker,  appealed 
without  success  to  the  political  feeling  of  his  associates, 
demanding  to  know  if  they  would  rather  have  Mr.  Bayard, 
who  was  then  Secretary  of  State,  than  John  Sherman,  who 
then  happened  to  be  President  of  the  Senate,  for  President 
of  the  United  States.  But  the  House,  also,  by  a  large  ma- 
jority, passed  the  measure. 



I  EARNESTLY  Supported  "William  B.  Hornblower  against 
the  opposition  of  Senator  Hill,  when  lie  was  nominated  by- 
Mr.  Cleveland  for  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  I  was  then  on  the  Judiciary  Committee.  I 
made  very  careful  inquiry,  and  had  reason  to  believe  that 
the  best  lawyers  in  New  York  thought  highly  of  him.  Judge 
Gray  told  me  that  Mr.  Hornblower  had  argued  a  case  in 
the  Court  not  long  before,  and  that  as  the  Judges  walked 
out  Judge  Blatchford  said  to  him:  "I  hope  you  have  as  good 
a  man  in  your  Circuit  to  succeed  you,  when  the  time  comes, 
as  we  have  in  ours  in  Mr.  Hornblower  to  succeed  me." 

I  did  not,  however,  support  Mr.  Wheeler  H.  Peckham. 
The  newspapers  circulated  the  story  extensively  that— to 
use  the  phrase  of  one  of  them— I  "led  the  opposition." 
That  was  not  true.  I  expected  to  vote  for  Mr.  Peckham 
until  just  before  the  vote  was  taken.  I  had  communicated 
my  expectation  to  support  him  to  Senator  Vilas,  who  had 
charge  of  the  case.  I  thought  before  the  vote  was  taken  it 
was  my  duty  to  tell  him  I  had  changed  my  mind.  So  I  went 
round  to  his  seat  and  told  him.  Nobody  else  knew  my  pur- 
pose till  I  voted. 

I  had  no  political  sympathy  with  Senator  Hill,  still  less 
with  the  claim  often  imputed  to  the  Senate  by  writers  of 
newspapers,  but  of  which  I  have  never  seen  the  slightest 
evidence,  that  Senators  have  the  right  to  dictate  such 
appointments.  But  I  thought  Mr.  Cleveland  ought  not  to 
have  made  such  an  appointment  without  consulting  Mr.  Hill, 
who  was  a  lavryer  of  eminence  and  knew  the  sentiment  of 
the  majority  of  the  Democratic  Party.  Mr.  Cleveland  had 
nominated  in  succession  two  persons  to  an  office  which  ought 



to  be  absolutely  non-partisan,  who  belonged  to  a  very  small 
company  of  men  devoted  to  his  personal  fortunes,  who  had 
bitterly  attacked  Mr.  Hill.  I  should  not,  however,  have 
deemed  this  objection  sufficient  to  justify  a  vote  against  Mr. 
Peckham,  but  for  the  fact  that  I  became  satisfied  he  was  a 
man  of  strong  prejudices,  with  little  of  the  judicial  temper 
or  quality  about  him,  and  quite  likely  to  break  down  under 
the  strain  of  heavy  responsibility. 

I  urged  Mr.  Vilas  to  ask  President  Cleveland  to  send  in 
the  name  of  Mr.  Hornblower  again,  having  some  hope  that 
the  Senate  would  reconsider  its  action  in  his  case.  But 
President  Cleveland  solved  the  difficulty  quite  skilfully  by 
sending  in  the  name  of  Senator  White  of  Louisiana,  a  most 
admirable  gentleman  and  Judge,  and  afterward,  when  there 
came  another  vacancy,  that  of  Eufus  W.  Peckham  of  New 
York,  both  of  whom  were  confirmed,  I  believe,  without  an 

I  just  referred  to  Senator  "William  F.  Vilas,  of  Wisconsin. 
I  should  like  to  put  on  record  my  great  esteem  for  his  char- 
acter as  a  man,  and  the  excellence  of  his  service  as  a  Sena- 
tor. He  was  on  the  Judiciary  Committee  while  I  was  Chair- 
man, and  also  for  a  time  when  his  party  had  the  majority. 
He  was  industrious,  wise,  conservative,  courteous,  and  fair, 
a  most  admirable  lawyer,  full  of  public  spirit,  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  mechanism  of  the  Government,  and  doing 
always  much  more  than  his  full  share  of  the  work  of  the 
Committee  and  of  the  Senate.  I  hope  the  country  may  have 
again  the  benefit  of  his  great  ability  in  some  department  of 
the  public  service. 

Chief  Justice  Fullee  said  with  singular  felicity : 

"Mr.  Justice  Lamar  always  underrated  himself.  This 
tendency  plainly  sprang  from  a  vivid  imagination.  With 
him  the  splendid  passions  attendant  upon  youth  never  faded 
into  the  light  of  common  day,  but  they  kept  before  him  as  an 
ideal,  the  impossibility  of  whose  realization,  as  borne  in 
upon  him  from  time  to  time,  opposed  him  with  a  sense  of 
failure.     Yet  the  conscientiousness  of  his  work  was  not 


lessened,  nor  was  the  acuteness  of  Ms  intellect  obscured  by 
these  natural  causes  of  his  discontent;  nor  did  a  certain 
Oriental  dreaminess  of  temperament  ever  allure  him  to 
abandon  the  effort  to  accomplish  something  that  would  last 
after  his  lips  were  dumb." 

Matthew  Arnold  says  in  one  of  his  essays  that  Americans 
lack  distinction.  I  have  a  huge  liking  for  Matthew  Arnold. 
He  had  a  wonderful  intellectual  vision.  I  do  not  mean  to 
say  that  his  three  lectures  on  translating  Homer  are  the 
greatest  literary  work  of  our  time.  But  I  think,  on  the 
whole,  that  I  should  rather  have  the  pair  of  intellectual 
eyes  which  can  see  Homer  as  he  saw  him,  than  any  other 
mental  quality  I  can  think  of.  But  Mr.  Arnold  has  never 
seemed  to  me  to  be  fortunate  in  his  judgment  about  Amer- 
icans. He  allows  this  quality  of  distinction  to  Grant,  but 
denies  it,  for  all  the  world,  to  Abraham  Lincoln.  The 
trouble  with  Mr.  Arnold  is  that  he  never  travelled  in  the 
United  States,  when  on  this  side  the  Atlantic.  He  spent 
his  time  with  a  few  friends  who  had  little  love  for  things 
Ajnerican.  He  visited  a  great  city  or  two,  but  never  made 
himself  acquainted  with  the  American  people.  He  never 
knew  the  sources  of  our  power,  or  the  spirit  of  our  people. 

Yet  there  is  a  good  deal  of  truth  in  what  he  says  of  the 
Americans  of  our  time.  It  is  still  more  true  of  the  English- 
men of  our  time.  The  newspaper,  and  the  telegraph,  and 
the  telephone,  and  the  constant  dissemination  of  news,  the 
public  library  and  the  common  school  and  college  mix  us 
all  up  together  and  tend  to  make  us,  with  some  rare  and  de- 
lightful exceptions,  eminently  commonplace.  Certainly  the 
men  who  are  sent  to  Congress  do  not  escape  this  wearying 
quality.  I  know  men  who  have  been  in  public  office  for 
more  than  a  generation,  who  have  had  enormous  power  and 
responsibility,  to  whom  the  country  is  indebted  for  safety 
and  happiness,  who  never  said  a  foolish  thing,  and  rarely 
ever  when  they  had  the  chance  failed  to  do  a  wise  one,  who 
are  utterly  commonplace.  You  could  not  read  the  story  of 
their  public  career  without  going  to  sleep.  They  never  said 
anything  worth  quoting,  and  never  did  anything  that  any 


other  equally  good  and  sensible  man  would  not  have  done 
in  their  place.  I  have  a  huge  respect  for  them.  I  can  never 
myself  attain  to  their  excellence.  Yet  I  would  as  lief  spend 
my  life  as  an  omnibus  horse  as  live  theirs. 

But  we  have  occasionally  some  delightful  exceptions.  It 
so  happens  that  some  of  the  best,  most  attractive  men 
I  have  known,  were  from  the  South.  They  are  men 
who  stood  by  the  Southern  people  through  thick  and  thin 
during  the  Rebellion,  and  in  resisting  every  attempt  on  the 
part  of  the  victorious  Northern  majority  to  raise  the  colored 
people  to  a  political  equality.  They  have  all  of  them,  I 
believe,  been  Free  Traders.  In  general  they  have  opposed 
the  construction  of  the  Constitution  which  has  prevailed  in 
New  England  and  throughout  the  North,  and  in  which  I 
have  myself  always  believed. 

I  have  never  had  much  personal  intimacy  with  any  of 
them.  I  have  had  some  vigorous  conflicts  with  one  or  two 
of  them.  Yet  I  have  had  from  each  before  our  association 
ended,  assurances  of  their  warm  personal  regard.  One  of 
them,  perhaps,  on  the  whole,  the  most  conspicuous,  is  Lucius 
Q.  C.  Lamar.  His  very  name,  Lucius  Quintus  Cincinnatus, 
indicates  that  his  father  must  have  looked  for  his  example 
for  his  son  to  follow  far  away  from  the  American  life  about 

Lamar  was  one  of  the  most  delightful  of  men.  His  Eng- 
lish style,  both  in  conversation  and  in  public  speaking,  was 
fresh  and  original,  well  adapted  to  keep  his  hearers  ex- 
pectant and  alert,  and  to  express  the  delicate  and  subtle 
shades  of  meaning  that  were  required  for  the  service  of  his 
delicate  and  subtle  thought. 

He  had  taken  the  part  of  the  South  with  great  zeal.  He 
told  me  shortly  before  he  left  the  Senate  that  he  thought  it 
was  a  great  misfortune  for  the  world  that  the  Southern 
cause  had  been  lost.  He  stood  by  his  people,  as  he  liked  to 
call  them,  in  their  defeat  and  in  their  calamity  without  flinch- 
ing or  reservation.  While  he  would,  I  am  sure,  have  done 
nothing  himself  not  scrupulously  honorable,  and  while  there 
was  nothing  in  his  nature  of  cruelty,  still  less  of  brutality, 
yet  he  did  not  stop  to  inquire  into  matters  of  right  and  wrong 


when  a  Soutlierner  had  got  into  trouble,  by  reason  of  any- 
thing a  white  Democrat  had  done  in  conflict  with  the  National 
authority.  Yet  Mr.  Lamar  desired  most  sincerely  the  recon- 
ciliation of  the  sections,  that  the  age-long  strife  should  come 
to  an  end  and  he  forgotten,  and  that  the  whole  South  should 
share  the  prosperity  and  wealth  and  refinement  and  con- 
tentment, which  submission  to  the  new  order  of  things  would 

He  was  a  far-sighted  man.  He  was  not  misled  by  tem- 
porary excitement  or  by  deference  to  the  majority  of  his 
political  friends  who  were  less  far-sighted  than  he,  into  any 
mistakes.  When  there  was  an  attempt  to  break  faith  in 
regard  to  what  was  called  the  Wheeler  compromise  in  the 
Democratic  House,  Mr.  Lamar  interposed  and  prevented  it. 
Just  after  the  count  under  the  Electoral  Commission  had 
been  completed,  there  was  a  very  dangerous  movement  to 
delay  action  on  the  returns  from  Vermont,  which  would  have 
prevented  the  completion  of  the  work  before  the  4th  of 
March.  Mr.  Lamar  put  forth  all  his  powerful  influence 
among  his  Democratic  associates  on  the  floor  of  the  House, 
and  saved  the  peace  of  the  country.  He  knew  very  well 
that  the  cause  of  the  South,  as  he  would  have  called  it, 
and  the  cause  of  the  Democratic  Party  itself,  would  not  be 
promoted  by  a  new  civil  convulsion,  still  less  by  any  breach 
of  faith. 

He  voted  against  the  free  coinage  of  silver  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  the  people  of  his  State  earnestly  favored  it,  and 
against  the  express  instructions  of  its  Legislature.  In  1874, 
at  a  time  when  the  passions  of  the  Civil  War  seemed  to  blaze 
higher,  and  the  angry  conflict  between  the  sections  seemed 
to  blaze  higher  even  than  during  the  war  itself,  he  astonished 
and  shocked  the  people  of  the  South  by  pronouncing  a  tender 
and  affectionate  eulogy  on  Charles  Sumner.  He  testified  to 
Sumner's  high  moral  qualities,  to  his  intense  love  of  liberty, 
to  his  magnanimity,  and  to  his  incapacity  for  a  personal 
animosity,  and  regretted  that  he  had  restrained  the  impulse 
which  had  been  strong  on  him  to  go  to  Mr.  Sumner  and 
offer  him  his  hand  and  his  heart  with  it.  It  would  have 
been  almost  impossible  for  any  other  man  who  had  done 


either  of  these  things  to  go  back  to  Mississippi  and  live. 
But  it  never  shook  for  a  moment  the  love  for  Lamar  of  a 
people  who  knew  so  well  his  love  for  them. 

Afterward  Mr.  Lamar  was  made  an  Associate  Justice  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  I  voted  against 
him— in  which  I  made  a  mistake— not  because  I  doubted  his 
eminent  integrity  and  ability,  but  because  I  thought  that  he 
had  little  professional  experience  and  no  judicial  experience, 
and  that  his  health— he  was  then  beginning  to  show  signs  of 
the  disease  which  ended  his  life  shortly  after— was  not  suffi- 
cient for  undertaking  the  great  study  and  the  labor  which 
the  new  office  would  require.  He  was  not  long  on  the  Bench, 
and  was  not  greatly  distinguished  as  a  Judge.  But  he  wrote 
a  few  opinions  which  showed  his  great  intellectual  capacity 
for  dealing  with  the  most  complicated  legal  questions,  espe- 
cially such  are  apt  to  arise  in  patent  cases. 

He  was  a  delightful  man  in  ordinary  conversation.  He 
had  an  infinite  wit  and  great  sense  of  humor.  He  used  to 
tell  delightful  stories  of  queer  characters  and  events  that  had 
come  within  his  own  observation.  My  relations  to  him  for  a 
good  while  were  entirely  antagonistic.  We  had  some  very 
sharp  controversies.  He  would  never  tolerate  any  expres- 
sion, in  his  presence,  of  disrespect  to  Jefferson  Davis.  He 
would  always  meet  the  statement  that  Mr.  Davis  was  a 
traitor  with  a  vigorous  denial.  When  I  made  a  motion  ex- 
cepting Jefferson  Davis  from  the  benefit  of  the  bill  to  pen- 
sion the  soldiers  of  the  Mexican  War,  Mr.  Lamar  compared 
him  to  Prometheus,  and  me  to  the  vulture  preying  upon  his 
liver.  He  was  the  last  person  from  whom  I  should  have 
expected  an  expression  of  compliment,  or  even  of  kindness 
in  those  days.  Yet  when  the  question  of  my  reelection  was 
pending  in  1883  and  the  correspondent  of  a  newspaper 
which  was  among  my  most  unrelenting  and  unscrupulous 
opponents  thought  he  might  get  some  material  which  would 
help  him  in  his  attacks,  called  upon  Mr.  Lamar  in  the  Demo- 
cratic cloak  room,  and  asked  him  what  he  thought  of  me, 
Mr.  Lamar  replied  in  language  which  seems  almost  ridicu- 
lous to  quote,  and  which  was  inspired  only  by  his  indignation 
at  the  attempt  to  use  him  for  such  a  purpose:  "Sir,  Massa- 



chusetts  has  never  been  more  powerfully  represented  in  the 
Senate,  not  even  in  the  time  of  Daniel  Webster,  than  by  Mr. 

It  was  with  feeling  of  great  pleasure  that  in  1886  I  saw 
Harvard  confer  her  highest  honor  on  this  delightful  Missis- 

He  was,  in  his  time,  I  think,  the  ablest  representative, 
certainly  among  the  ablest,  of  the  opinions  opposed  to  mine. 
He  had  a  delightful  and  original  literary  quality  which,  if 
the  lines  of  his  life  had  been  cast  amid  other  scenes  than 
the  tempest  of  a  great  Eevolution  and  Civil  War,  might 
have  made  him  a  dreamer  like  Montaigne ;  and  a  chivalrous 
quality  that  might  have  made  him  a  companion  of  Athos  and 
D  'Artagnan. 

His  eulogy  on  Calhoun,  with  whom  in  general  he  sym- 
pathized, was  a  masterpiece  of  eloquence,  but  his  eulogy  on 
Charles  Sumner,  which  probably  no  other  man  in  the  South 
could  have  uttered  without  political  death,  was  greater  still. 
It  was  a  good  omen  for  the  country.  At  the  moment  he 
uttered  it,  I  suppose  Charles  Sumner  was  hated  throughout 
the  South  with  an  intensity  which  in  this  day  of  reconcilia- 
tion it  is  almost  impossible  to  conceive.  Yet  Mr.  Lamar  in 
his  place  in  the  House  of  Representatives  dared  to  utter 
these  sentences: 

"Charles  Sumner  was  bom  with  an  instinctive  love  of 
freedom,  and  was  educated  from  his  earliest  infancy  to  the 
belief  that  freedom  is  the  natural  and  indefeasible  right  of 
every  intelligent  being  having  the  outward  form  of  man. 
In  him,  in  fact,  this  creed  seems  to  have  been  something 
more  than  a  doctrine  imbibed  from  teachers,  or  a  result  of 
education.  To  him  it  was  a  grand  intuitive  truth,  inscribed 
in  blazing  letters  upon  the  tablet  of  his  inner  consciousness, 
to  deny  which  would  have  been  for  him  to  deny  that  he  him- 
self existed.  And  along  with  this  all-controlling  love  of 
freedom  he  possessed  a  moral  sensibility  keenly  intense  and 
vivid,  a  conscientiousness  which  would  never  permit  him  to 
swerve  by  the  breadth  of  a  hair  from  what  he  pictured  to 
himself  as  the  path  of  duty.     Thus  were  combined  in  him 


the  characteristics  which  have  in  all  ages  given  to  re- 
ligion her  martyrs,  and  to  patriotism  her  self-sacrificing 
heroes. ' ' 

After  speaking  of  the  kindness  of  Mr.  Sumner  to  the 
South,  and  his  spirit  of  magnanimity,  he  added : 

"It  was  my  misfortune,  perhaps  my  fault,  personally 
never  to  have  known  this  eminent  philanthropist  and  states- 
man. The  impulse  was  often  strong  upon  me  to  go  to  him 
and  offer  him  my  hand,  and  my  heart  with  it,  and  to  express 
to  him  my  thanks  for  his  kind  and  considerate  course  toward 
the  people  with  whom  I  am  identified.  If  I  did  not  yield 
to  that  impulse,  it  was  because  the  thought  occurred  that 
other  days  were  coming  in  which  such  a  demonstration  might 
be  more  opportune  and  less  liable  to  misconstruction.  Sud- 
denly and  without  premonition,  a  day  has  come  at  last  to 
which,  for  such  a  purpose,  there  is  no  to-morrow.  My 
regret  is  therefore  intensified  by  the  thought  that  I  failed 
to  speak  to  him  out  of  the  fulness  of  my  heart  while  there 
was  yet  time. ' ' 

That  Mr.  Lamar  well  understood  what  was  to  be  the  effect 
of  this  wonderful  speech  upon  the  whole  country  is  shown 
by  his  letter  to  his  wife  the  next  day,  in  which  he  says :  "I 
never  in  all  my  life  opened  my  lips  with  a  purpose  more 
single  to  the  interests  of  our  Southern  people  than  when  I 
made  this  speech." 

I  said  of  this  speech  in  an  article  in  the  North  American 

Review : 

"The  eloquent  words  of  Mr.  Lamar  so  touched  the  hearts 
of  the  people  of  the  North  that  they  may  fairly  be  said  to 
have  been  of  themselves  an  important  influence  in  mitigating 
the  estrangements  of  a  generation." 

The  following  letter  explains  my  absence  from  the  Senate 
when  Judge  Lamar's  death  was  announced: 


Washington,  D.  C,  January  29,  1893. 
My  Dear  Madmn: 

1  was  kept  in  bed,  under  the  orders  of  my  physician,  the 
day  the  death  of  your  lamented  husband  was  announced  to 
the  Senate.  I  regret  exceedingly  that  I  could  not  be  in  my 
place  to  express  my  sense  of  the  great  public  loss  and  my 
warm  personal  admiration  for  his  great  qualities  of  intellect 
and  of  heart.  I  served  with  him  in  the  House  of  Eepresen- 
tatives  for  more  than  four  years,  and  in  the  Senate  for  more 
than  eight  years.  It  was  a  stormy  and  exciting  time.  We 
differed  widely  on  very  grave  questions,  and  this  difference 
was  more  than  once  very  sharply  manifested  in  public;  but 
the  more  I  knew  him,  the  more  satisfied  I  became  of  the 
sincerity  of  his  patriotism,  of  his  profound  and  far-sighted 
wisdom,  of  the  deep  fountain  of  tenderness  in  his  affection- 
ate and  simple  heart,  and  of  his  brave  and  chivalrous  quality 
of  soul.  I  was  more  than  once  indebted  to  him  for  very 
great  kindness  indeed,  under  circumstances  when  I  do  not 
think  he  supposed  it  would  ever  come  to  my  knowledge. 

Some  of  his  judgments  on  the  Supreme  Bench  are  charac- 
terized by  marvellous  beauty  and  felicity  of  style.  He  main- 
tained his  place  on  that  great  tribunal  to  the  satisfaction  of 
his  friends  and  the  admiration  of  his  countrymen,  in  spite 
of  failing  health  and  of  the  fact  that  the  best  years  of  his  life 
had  been  given  to  other  studies  than  that  of  the  law. 

It  is  a  good  omen  for  our  country  that  the  friends  and  dis- 
ciples of  Charles  Sumner  unite  with  the  people  of  Missis- 
sippi in  their  reverence  for  this  noble  and  manly  character. 

I  am  f aithfuly  yours, 

Geoege  F.  Hoae. 

Mrs.  Lamar. 



Another  most  delightful  Democrat,  with  whom  it  was  my 
pleasure  to  form  quite  intimate  relations,  was  Senator  How- 
ell E.  Jackson  of  Tennessee.  He  had  been  in  the  Confeder- 
ate service.  I  think  he  did  not  approve  Secession,  but  like 
most  others  who  dwelt  in  the  South,  thought  his  allegiance 
primarily  due  to  his  State.  He  was  an  admirable  lawyer, 
faithful,  industrious,  clear-headed  and  learned  in  the  law. 
He  had  been  a  Whig  before  the  war,  and,  like  other  South- 
em  Whigs,  favored  a  moderate  protective  tariff.  He  was 
anxious  to  have  the  South  take  her  place  as  a  great  manu- 
facturing community,  for  which  her  natural  resources  of 
iron  and  coal  and  her  great  water  power  gave  her  such 
advantages.  He  was  opposed  to  the  Republican  measures 
of  Reconstruction  and  to  placing  the  negro  on  a  political 
equality  with  the  whites.  But  he  also  discountenanced  and 
condemned  any  lawless  violence  or  fraud. 

Senator  Jackson  was  appointed  Judge  of  the  United 
States  Circuit  Court  by  President  Cleveland.  He  held  that 
office  when  a  vacancy  on  the  Bench  of  the  Supreme  Court 
came  by  the  death  of  Justice  Lamar.  The  election  of  1892 
had  resulted  in  the  choice  of  President  Cleveland.  The 
Democrats  in  the  Senate  were  determined  that  no  Republi- 
can who  should  be  nominated  by  President  Harrison  should 
be  confirmed,  and  did  not  mean,  if  they  could  help  it,  that 
the  place  should  be  filled  during  the  December  session.  The 
only  way  to  get  such  a  confirmation  would  be  for  the  Re- 
publican majority  to  put  the  question  ahead  of  all  other 
subjects,  to  go  into  Executive  session  every  day  as  soon  as 
the  Senate  met,  and  remain  there  until  the  judgeship  was 
disposed  of.  The  Democrats  must  then  choose  between  de- 


feating  the  Appropriation  Bills,  and  compelling  an  extra 
session,  which  the  in-coming  Administration  would  not  like. 
In  order  to  do  that,  however,  the  small  Eepuhlican  majority 
must  hold  together  firmly,  and  be  willing  to  take  the  risk  of 
an  extra  session. 

I  called  on  President  Harrison  and  urged  upon  him  the 
appointment  of  Judge  Jackson.  I  represented  that  it  was 
desirable  that  there  should  be  some  Democrats  upon  the 
Bench,  and  that  they  should  be  men  who  had  the  confidence 
of  their  own  part  of  the  country  and  of  the  country  at  large ; 
that  Judge  Jackson  was  a  man  of  admirable  judicial  quality ; 
that  he  had  the  public  confidence  in  a  high  degree,  and 
that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  Democratic  Party  to 
object  to  his  selection,  while  it  would  strengthen  the  Bench. 
So  I  thought  that  even  if  we  could  put  one  of  our  men 
there  without  difficulty,  it  would  be  wise  to  appoint  Jack- 

President  Harrison  was  very  unwilling,  indeed,  to  take 
this  view.  He  answered  me  at  first  in  his  rough  impulsive 
way,  and  seemed  very  unwilling  even  to  take  the  matter  into 
consideration.  But  after  a  considerable  discussion  he  asked 
me  to  ascertain  whether  the  Republicans  would  be  willing, 
if  he  sent  in  a  Eepuhlican  name,  to  adopt  the  course  above 
suggested,  and  transact  no  other  business  until  the  result 
was  secured,  even  at  the  risk  of  defeating  the  Appropriation 
Bills  and  causing  an  extra  session.  I  went  back  to  the 
Senate  and  consulted  a  good  many  Senators.  Nearly  all  of 
them  said  they  would  not  agree  to  such  a  struggle;  that 
they  thought  it  very  undesirable  indeed;  that  the  effect 
would  be  bad.  So  it  was  clear  that  nothing  could  be 
accomplished  in  that  way.  I  went  back  to  the  White 
House  and  reported.  I  got  the  authority  of  the  gentlemen 
I  had  consulted  to  tell  the  President  what  they  said.  The 
result  was  the  appointment  of  Judge  Jackson,  to  the  great 
satisfaction  of  the  country.  He  was  a  very  industrious  and 
faithful  Judge.  But  his  useful  life  came  to  an  end  soon 
afterward,  I  suppose  largely  as  the  result  of  overwork  in  his 
important  and  laborious  office. 


The  Attorney-General  said  of  Mr.  Justice  Jackson:  "He 
was  not  so  much  a  Senator  who  had  been  appointed  Judge, 
as  a  Judge  who  had  served  for  a  time  as  Senator." 

I  served  with  Senator  Jackson  on  the  Committee  on 
Claims,  and  on  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary.  We  did 
not  meet  often  in  social  life.  He  rarely  came  to  my  room. 
I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  visited  him  in  his  home.  But 
we  formed  a  very  cordial  and  intimate  friendship.  I  have 
hardly  known  a  nature  better  fitted,  morally  or  intellectually, 
for  great  public  trusts,  either  judicial  or  political,  than  his. 
In  the  beginning,  I  think  the  f ramers  of  the  Constitution  in- 
tended the  Senate  to  be  a  sort  of  political  Supreme  Court, 
in  which,  as  a  court  of  final  resort,  the  great  conflicts  which 
had  stirred  the  people,  and  stirred  the  Representatives  of 
the  people  in  the  lower  House,  should  be  decided  without 
heat  and  without  party  feeling.  It  was,  I  have  been  told, 
considered  a  breach  of  propriety  to  allude  to  party  divisions 
in  the  early  debates  in  the  Senate,  as  it  would  be  now  deemed 
a  breach  of  propriety  to  allude  to  such  divisions  in  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States. 

Howell  E.  Jackson  had  this  ancient  Senatorial  tempera- 
ment. He  never  seemed  to  me  to  be  thinking  of  either 
party  or  section  or  popular  opinion,  or  of  the  opinion  of 
other  men ;  but  only  of  public  duty. 

He  never  flinched  from  uttering  and  maintaining  his 
opinions.  He  never  caressed  or  cajoled  his  political 
antagonists.  It  is  a  great  tribute  to  his  personal  quality 
that  he  owed  his  election  as  Senator  to  his  political  oppon- 
ents who,  when  his  own  party  was  divided,  joined  a  majority 
of  his  party  to  elect  him.  He  also,  as  has  been  said,  owed 
his  appointment  as  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
to  the  impression  which  his  probity  and  ability  had  made 
on  his  political  opponents.  "When  sick  with  a  fatal  illness 
he  left  a  sick  bed  to  take  his  place  upon  the  Bench  at  the  call 
of  duty  when  the  Income  Tax  case  was  to  be  decided.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  the  effort  hastened  his  death.  I  do  not 
agree  with  the  conclusion  to  which  he  came  on  that  great 
occasion.  But  the  fact  that  he  came  to  that  conclusion  is 
enough  to  make  me  feel  sure  that  there  were  strong  reasons 


for  it,  which  might  well  convince  the  clearest  understand- 
ing, and  be  reconciled  with  the  most  conscientious  desire  to 

do  right. 


No  list  of  the  remarkable  Senators  of  my  time  would  be 
complete  which  did  not  contain  the  name  of  Senator  Vest  of 
Missouri.  He  was  not  a  very  frequent  speaker,  and  never 
spoke  at  great  length.  But  his  oratorio  powers  are  of  a 
very  high  order.  On  some  few  occasions  he  has  made 
speeches,  always  speaking  without  notes,  and  I  suppose 
without  previous  preparation  so  far  as  expression  and  style 
go,  which  have  very  deeply  moved  the  Senate,  though  made 
up  of  men  who  have  been  accustomed  to  oratory  and  not 
easily  stirred  to  emotion.  Mr.  Vest  is  a  brave,  sincere, 
spirited  and  straightforward  man.  He  has  a  good  many  of 
the  prejudices  of  the  old  Southern  Secessionist.  I  think 
those  prejudices  would  long  ago  have  melted  away  in  the 
sunshine  of  our  day  of  returning  good  feeling  and  affection, 
but  for  the  fact  that  his  chivalrous  nature  will  not  permit 
him  to  abandon  a  cause  or  an  opinion  to  which  he  has  once 
adhered,  while  it  is  unpopular.  These  things,  however,  are 
never  uttered  offensively.  He  is  like  some  old  cavalier  who 
supported  the  Stuarts,  who  lived  down  into  the  days  of  the 
House  of  Hanover,  but  still  toasted  the  King  over  the  water. 

Among  the  most  interesting  characters  with  whom  it  has 
been  my  fortune  to  serve  is  Senator  John  W.  Daniel  of 
Virginia.  Our  ways  of  life,  and  in  many  particulars  our 
ways  of  thinking,  are  far  apart.  But  I  have  been  led  to 
form  a  great  respect  for  his  intellectual  qualities,  and  for 
his  sincere  and  far-sighted  patriotism. 

Mr.  Daniel  came  into  the  Senate  in  1887.  He  had  been 
known  as  a  very  eminent  lawyer  at  the  Virginia  Bar,  author 
of  two  excellent  law  books.  He  had  served  a  single  term 
in  the  National  House  of  Representatives.  He  had  won  a 
National  reputation  there  by  a  very  beautiful  and  brilliant 
speech  at  the  completion  of  the  "Washington  Monument. 
There  were  two  notable  orations  at  the  time,  one  by  Mr. 
Daniel  and  one  by  Robert  C.  Winthrop.  These  gentlemen 
were  selected  for  the  purpose  as  best  representing  two  sec- 


tions  of  the  country.  Mr.  Winthrop  was,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, the  fittest  man  in  the  North  for  such  a  task.  I  have  a 
special  admiration  for  the  spirit  and  eloquence  with  which 
he  performed  such  duties.  To  my  mind  no  higher  praise 
could  be  given  Mr.  Daniel's  address  than  that  it  is  worthy 
of  that  company. 

I  had  occasion  to  look  at  Mr.  Winthrop's  address  some 
little  time  ago,  and,  opening  the  volume  containing  it  in  the 
middle,  I  read  a  page  or  two  with  approval  and  delight 
thinking  it  was  Mr.  Winthrop's.  But  I  found,  on  looking 
back  to  the  beginning  that  it  was  Senator  Daniel 's. 

Mr.  Daniel  speaks  too  rarely  in  the  Senate.  He  is  always 
listened  to  with  great  attention.  He  speaks  only  on  im- 
portant questions,  to  which  he  always  makes  an  important 
contribution.  He  has  the  old-fashioned  Virginia  method  of 
speech,  now  nearly  passed  away,— grave,  deliberate,  with 
stately  periods  and  sententious  phrases,  such,  I  suppose, 
as  were  used  in  the  Convention  that  adopted  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  in  that  which  framed  or  revised  the  Constitution  of 

Mr.  Daniel  was  a  Confederate  soldier.  He  is  a  Vir- 
ginian to  his  heart's  core.  He  looks  with  great  alarm  on  the 
possibility  that  the  ancient  culture  and  nobility  of  the  South, 
and  the  lofty  character  of  the  Virginian  as  he  existed  in  the 
time  of  Washington  and  Marshall  and  Patrick  Henry  may 
be  degraded  by  raising  what  he  thinks  an  inferior  race  to 
social  or  even  political  quality. 

But  he  retains  no  bitterness  or  hate  or  desire  for  revenge 
by  reason  of  the  conflict  of  the  Civil  War.  He  delivered  an 
address  before  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  Su- 
preme Court,  the  representatives  of  foreign  Governments, 
the  two  Houses  of  Congress  and  the  Governors  of  twenty- 
one  States  and  Territories,  on  the  12th  of  December,  1900, 
on  the  occasion  of  the  celebration  of  the  Centennial  Anni- 
versary of  establishing  the  seat  of  Government  at  Wash- 
ington. That  remarkable  address  was  full  of  wise  counsel 
to  his  countrymen.  Coming  from  a  representative  of  Vir- 
ginia, who  had  borne  arms  and  been  badly  wounded  in  the 
Civil  War,  it  had  a  double  value  and  significance.    Mr. 


Daniel  declared  the  cheering  and  hopeful  truth  that  great 
races  are  made  of  a  mixture  of  races,  and  that  the  best  and 
bravest  blood  of  the  world's  great  races  is  mixed  in  the 
American.  He  appealed  eloquently  to  the  circumstances 
which  should  stir  the  heart  of  the  whole  people  to  a  new  and 
loftier  love  of  country.  He  pointed  out  that  the  differences 
in  forty-five  great  Commonwealths  are  not  greater  than  ought 
to  be  expected,  and  indeed  not  greater  than  is  healthy.  He 
pointed  out  the  National  strength,  the  power  of  our  great 
volunteer  soldiery,  and  congratulated  the  country  that  the 
Republic  stands  at  the  dawn  of  a  new  century,  with  every 
man  under  its  flag  a  freeman  and  ready  to  defend  it.  He 
called  upon  his  countrymen  to  stand  by  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine, to  be  ready  to  defend  it,  if  need  be,  in  arms.  He  then 
specially  appealed  to  the  people  to  foster  the  inventive 
genius  of  the  country,  and  repeated  Mr.  Jefferson's  lofty 
prophecy  that  in  some  future  day — 

"The  farthest  star  in  the  heavens  will  bear  the  name  of 
Washington,  and  the  city  he  founded  be  the  Capital  of  the 
universal  Republic." 

Isham  G.  Harris  entered  the  Senate  the  same  day  I  did. 
I  counted  him  always  among  my  friends,  although  we  had 
some  sharp  passages.  I  cannot  describe  him  better  than  by 
reprinting  here  what  I  said  of  him  in  the  Senate  after  his 

' '  Mr.  President,  the  great  career  of  Senator  Harris  is  well 
known  to  his  countrymen.  He  has  been  for  more  than  a 
generation  a  striking  and  conspicuous  figure  in  our  public 
life.  His  colleague,  his  successor,  the  men  of  his  own  polit- 
ical faith,  the  people  of  the  great  State  which  he  served  and 
honored  and  loved  so  long,  will,  each  in  their  own  way,  por- 
tray his  character  and  record  their  esteem  and  affection. 

' '  My  tribute  must  be  that  of  a  political  opponent.  So  far 
as  I  have  been  able  to  exert  any  infiuence  upon  the  history 
of  my  country  during  the  long  conflict  now  happily  past,  it 
has  been  in  opposition  to  him,  to  the  party  to  which  he  be- 
longed, to  the  opinions  which  he  held,  I  am  sure,  quite  as 
zealously  and  conscientiously  as  I  hold  my  own. 


"We  entered  the  Senate  on  the  same  day.  He  was  a 
Southerner,  a  Democrat  and  a  Confederate.  I  was  born 
and  bred  in  New  England,  a  Republican,  and  an  Abolition- 
ist. We  rarely  spoke  in  the  same  debate  except  on  different 
sides.  Yet  I  have  no  memory  of  him  that  is  not  tender  and 
affectionate,  and  there  is  nothing  that  I  can  honestly  say  of 
him  except  words  of  respect  and  of  honor. 

"He  was  a  typical  Southerner.  He  had  the  virtues  and 
the  foibles  that  belonged  to  that  character  in  the  generation 
the  last  of  whom  are  now  passing  from  the  stage  of  public 
action.  He  was  a  man  of  very  simple  and  very  high  quali- 
ties. He  was  a  man  of  absolute  frankness  in  public  behavior 
and  in  private  dealing.  The  thought  that  was  in  his  heart 
corresponded  absolutely  with  the  utterance  of  his  lips.  He 
had  nothing  to  conceal.  I  was  about  to  say  he  was  a  man 
without  the  gift  of  diplomacy ;  but  he  was  a  man  with  the 
gift  of  the  highest  diplomacy— directness,  simplicity,  frank- 
ness, courage— qualities  which  make  always  their  way  to 
their  mark  and  to  their  goal  over  all  circumlocutions  and 

' '  He  was  a  man  of  brief,  clear  and  compact  speech.  He 
would  sum  up  in  a  few  vigorous  and  ringing  sentences  the 
argument  to  which  other  men  would  give  hours  or  days.  He 
had  an  instinct  for  the  hinge  or  turning  point  of  a  debate. 

"He  was  a  man  of  absolute  integrity  and  steadfastness. 
What  he  said,  that  he  would  do.  Where  you  left  him,  there, 
so  long  as  he  lived,  you  would  find  him  when  you  came  back. 
He  was  a  man  of  unflinching  courage.  He  was  not  afraid 
of  any  antagonist,  whether  in  the  hall  of  debate  or  on  the 
field  of  battle. 

"He  was  an  acknowledged  master  of  parliamentary  law, 
a  system  upon  which  not  only  the  convenient  procedure  of 
legislative  bodies  largely  depends,  but  which  has  close  rela- 
tions to  Constitutional  Liberty  itself.  How  often  a  few 
simple  and  clear  sentences  of  his  have  dispersed  the  clouds 
and  brought  order  out  of  confusion  in  this  Chamber. 

"His  great  legislative  experience  made  him  invaluable  as 
a  servant  of  his  own  State,  of  the  country  and  as  a  counsellor 
to  liis  younger  associates. 


' '  He  was  a  pleasant  man  in  private  intercourse.  He  had 
great  sense  of  humor,  a  gift  of  portraiture,  a  good  memory. 
So  he  brought  out  of  the  treasure-house  of  his  varied  ex- 
perience abundant  matter  for  the  delight  of  young  and  old. 
There  is  no  man  left  in  the  Senate  who  was  better  company 
in  hours  of  recreation. 

' '  His  influence  will  be  felt  here  for  a  long  time.  His  strik- 
ing figure  will  still  seem  to  be  hovering  about  the  Senate 
Chamber,  still  sitting,  still  deliberating,  still  debating. 

"Mr.  President,  it  is  delightful  to  think  how,  during  the 
lives  of  the  men  who  took  part  in  the  great  conflict  which 
preceded  and  followed  the  Civil  War  and  the  greater  con- 
flict of  the  war  itself,  the  old  bitterness  and  estra,ngements 
are  all  gone.  Throughout  the  whole  land  the  word  'coun- 
tryman' has  at  last  become  a  title  of  endearment.  The 
memory  of  the  leaders  of  that  great  conflict  is  preserved 
as  tenderly  by  the  men  who  fought  with  them  as  by  the  men 
who  followed  them.  Massachusetts  joins  with  Tennessee  in 
laying  a  wreath  on  the  tomb  of  her  great  soldier,  her  great 
Governor,  her  great  Senator.  He  was  faithful  to  truth  as 
he  saw  it;  to  duty  as  he  understood  it;  to  Constitutional 
Liberty  as  he  conceived  it. 

' '  If,  as  some  of  us  think,  he  erred,  his  error  was  that  of  a 
brave  man  ready  to  give  life  and  health  and  hope  to  the 
unequal  struggle. 

To  his  loved  cause  he  offered,  free  from  stain, 
Courage  and  faith;  vain  faith  and  courage  vain. 

"And,  Mr.  President,  when  he  returned  to  his  allegiance, 
he  offered  to  the  service  of  his  reunited  country  the  same 
zeal  and  devotion  he  had  given  to  the  Confederacy.  There 
was  no  reserved  or  half-hearted  loyalty.  We  could  have 
counted  on  his  care  for  the  honor  and  glory  of  the  country, 
on  his  wise  and  brave  counsel,  in  this  hour  of  anxiety,  with 
an  unquestioning  confidence.  So  Massachusetts  to-day 
presses  the  hand  of  Tennessee  and  mourns  with  her  for  her 
great  citizen  who  has  departed." 

James  B.  Eustis  of  Louisiana  was  of  old  Massachusetts 
stock.     His  father  was  graduated  at  Harvard,  and  went  to 


New  Orleans,  where  he  acquired  great  distinction  at  the 
bar,  and  as  Chief  Justice  of  that  State.  Senator  Eustis's 
great-uncle  was  General  Eustis,  an  eminent  soldier  of  the 
Revolutionary  War,  and  afterward  Governor  of  Massachu- 

Senator  Eustis  seemed  somewhat  indolent,  and  to  take 
very  little  interest  indeed  in  what  was  going  on,  except  on 
some  few  occasions  when  he  bore  himself  in  debate  with 
remarkable  ability.  I  think  his  grave,  scholarly  style,  and 
his  powerful  reasoning,  the  propriety,  dignity  and  modera- 
tion with  which  he  dealt  with  important  subjects,  made  him 
nearly  the  finest  example  of  Senatorial  behavior  I  have  ever 
known.  He  once  made  a  speech  in  Executive  session,  on 
a  topic  which  was  suggested  suddenly  and  he  could  not 
have  anticipated,  on  the  character  and  history  of  French 
diplomacy,  which  was  marvellous  alike  for  his  profound  and 
accurate  knowledge  of  the  subject  and  the  beauty  and  grace 
of  his  discourse. 

I  was  not  intimate  with  him  in  Washington.  But  I  met 
him  in  Paris,  while  he  was  Ambassador  there  under  Presi- 
dent Cleveland's  Administration.  I  have  delightful  mem- 
ories of  his  hospitality,  especially  of  one  breakfast,  where 
there  was  but  one  other  guest  beside  myself,  in  a  beautiful 
room  overlooking  the  Seine  and  the  Place  de  la  Concorde. 

If  I  were  to  select  the  one  man  of  all  others  with  whom 
I  have  served  in  the  Senate,  who  seems  to  me  the  most  per- 
fect example  of  the  quality  and  character  of  the  American 
Senator,  I  think  it  would  be  Edward  C.  Walthall  of  Missis- 
sippi. I  knew  him  personally  very  little.  I  do  not  now 
remember  that  I  ever  saw  him,  except  in  the  Capitol,  or  in 
the  Capitol  grounds.  I  had,  I  dare  say,  some  pleasant  talks 
with  him  in  the  Senate  Chamber,  or  the  cloak  room.  But  I 
remember  little  of  them  now.  He  rarely  took  part  in  debate. 
He  was  a  very  modest  man.  He  left  to  his  associates  the 
duty  of  advocating  his  and  their  opinions,  unless  he  was 
absolutely  compelled  by  some  special  reason  to  do  it  him- 
self. When  he  did  speak  the  Senate  listened  to  a  man  of 
great  ability,  eloquence  and  dignity.    I  once  heard  him  en- 


counter  "William  M.  Evarts  in  debate.  Evarts  made  a  pre- 
pared speech  upon  a  measure  which  he  had  in  charge. 
Walthall's  reply  must  have  been  unpremeditated  and  wholly 
unexpected  to  him.  I  think  Evarts  was  in  the  right  and 
Walthall  in  the  wrong.  But  the  Mississippian  certainly  got 
the  better  of  the  encounter. 

It  is  a  remarkable  truth,  which  impresses  itself  upon 
me  more  and  more  the  longer  I  live,  that  men  who  are  per- 
fectly sincere  and  patriotic  may  differ  from  each  other  on 
what  seem  the  clearest  principles  of  morals  and  duty,  and 
yet  both  sides  be  conscientious  and  patriotic.  There  is 
hardly  a  political  question  among  the  great  questions  that 
have  excited  the  American  people  for  the  last  half  century 
on  which  we  did  not  differ  from  each  other.  The  difference 
was  not  only  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  welfare  of  the  people,  but  seemed  to  go  down  to  the  very 
roots  of  the  moral  law. 

Yet  what  I  have  just  said  about  him  is  without  exaggera- 
tion. I  have  the  right  to  believe  that  he  entertained  the 
kindliest  and  most  cordial  feeling  of  regard  for  me.  Not 
long  before  he  died.  President  McKinley  sent  for  me  to  come 
to  the  White  House.  He  wished  to  talk  with  me  about  what 
he  should  do  in  dealing  with  Cuba.  He  was  then  holding 
back  the  popular  feeling,  and  resisting  a  demand  which  mani- 
fested itself  among  Republicans  in  both  Houses  of  Congress 
for  immediate  and  vigorous  action  which  would  without 
doubt  have  brought  on  the  war  with  Spain  without  delay. 
He  hoped  then  that  the  war  might  be  avoided.  I  had  to  go 
to  the  Capitol  before  complying  with  the  President's  re- 
quest, as  it  was  shortly  before  the  time  for  the  session.  As 
I  was  leaving  the  Capitol  to  go  to  the  White  House,  I  met 
Senator  Walthall.  He  said,  "You  seem  to  be  going  the 
wrong  way  this  morning,"  or  something  like  that.  I  said, 
"Yes,  I  am  going  to  see  the  President."  Senator  Walthall 
said :  "I  wish  you  would  be  good  enough  to  say  to  him  from 
me  that  he  may  depend  upon  the  support  of  the  Democrats 
in  the  Senate,  with  only  one  or  two  exceptions,"  whom  he 
named,  ' '  to  support  him  in  his  efforts  to  avoid  war,  and  to 
accomplish  a  peaceful  solution  of  the  difficulties  in  regard 


to  Cuba."  I  undertook  to  give  the  message.  And  just  as 
we  were  parting,  Senator  Waltliall  turned  and  said  to  me 
that  lie  wished  to  tell  me  how  highly  he  regarded  me,  and 
how  sensible  he  was,  notwithstanding  my  very  strong  North- 
ern feeling,  of  my  appreciation  of  the  character  of  the 
Southern  people,  and  my  desire  to  do  them  full  justice.  He 
added  that  he  regarded  it  one  of  the  most  pleasant  things 
that  had  happened  to  him  in  life  that  he  had  had  the  pleasure 
of  serving  with  me.  I  do  not  now  remember  that  I  ever 
spoke  to  him  again.  He  did  not  come  to  the  Senate  Cham- 
ber very  often  afterward.  I  have  thought  since  that  this  un- 
wonted expression  of  deep  feeling  from  a  gentleman  not 
wont  to  wear  his  heart  upon  his  sleeve  toward  his  political 
opponent,  and  a  man  with  whom  he  so  often  disagreed,  was 
due  to  a  premonition,  of  which  he  was  perhaps  unconscious, 
that  the  end  of  his  life  was  near,  and  to  the  kindly  and  gen- 
tle emotions  which  in  a  brave  and  affectionate  heart  like 
his  the  approach  of  death  is  apt  to  bring. 

I  could  hardly  venture  to  repeat  this  story,  to  which  there 
is  no  other  witness  than  my  own,  but  for  some  letters  in  my 
possession  from  Mr.  Walthall's  daughter  and  friend  in 
which  the  writers  quote  even  stronger  expressions  of  his 

I  heard  a  great  deal  of  him  from  Senator  Lamar,  who 
loved  him  as  a  brother,  and  almost  worshipped  him  as  a 
leader.  Senator  Lamar  told  me  that  he  thought  Walthall 
the  ablest  military  genius  of  the  Confederacy,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Lee,  and,  I  think,  of  Stonewall  Jackson.  Indeed, 
I  think  he  expressed  doubt  whether  either  exception  could 
be  made.  He  said  that  if  anything  had  happened  to  Lee, 
Walthall  would  have  succeeded  to  the  chief  command  of  the 
Confederate  forces.  General  Walthall  seemed  to  me  the 
perfect  type  of  the  gentleman  in  character  and  speech.  He 
was  modest,  courteous  and  eager  to  be  of  service  to  Ms 
friends  or  his  country.  The  description  of  the  young 
Knight  given  us  by  Chaucer,  the  morning  star  of  English 
poetry,  still  abides  as  the  best  definition  of  the  gentleman. 

Curteis  he  was,  lowly  and  serviceable. 


His  colleague,  Mr.  "Williams  of  Mississippi,  after  Wal- 
thall 's  death,  described  the  Southern  gentleman  of  our  time 
in  a  sentence  which  deserves  to  stand  by  the  side  of 
Chaucer 's  : 

' '  The  ideal  gentleman  was  always  honest ;  spoke  the  truth ; 
faced  his  enemy ;  fought  him,  if  necessary ;  never  quarrelled 
with  him  nor  talked  about  him;  rode  well;  shot  well;  used 
chaste  and  correct  English;  insulted  no  man— bore  no  insult 
from  any;  was  studiously  kind  to  his  inferiors,  especially 
to  his  slaves ;  cordial  and  hospitable  to  his  equals ;  courteous 
to  his  superiors,  if  he  acknowledged  any;  he  scorned  a 
demagogue,  but  loved  his  people. ' ' 

I  do  not  undertake  to  draw  his  portraiture.  I  suppose 
that  whoever  does  that  must  describe  a  great  soldier  and  a 
great  lawyer,  as  well  as  a  great  Senator.  I  only  state  what 
I  saw  of  him  in  the  Senate  Chamber.  It  was  said  of  him  by 
an  eminent  Eepublican  Senator,  his  associate  on  the  Com- 
mittee on  Military  Affairs,  that  in  dealing  with  questions 
which  affected  the  right  of  Union  soldiers,  or  growing  out 
of  service  to  the  Union  during  the  Civil  "War,  no  stranger 
could  have  discovered  on  which  side  of  that  great  war  he 
had  ranged  himself. 



I  BEPEiNT  here  a  paper  read  before  the  American  Anti- 
quarian Society  shortly  after  Mr.  Davis's  death. 

Cushman  Kellogg  Davis  was  born  at  Henderson,  Jeffer- 
son County,  New  York,  June  16,  1838,  and  died  at  St.  Paul, 
Minnesota,  November  27,  1900.  On  his  mother's  side  he 
was  descended  from  Eobert  Cushman  and  Mary  AUerton, 
the  last  survivor  of  the  company  which  came  over  in  the 
Mayflower.  He  was  graduated  at  the  University  of  Michi- 
gan in  1857,  and  admitted  to  the  Bar  shortly  before  the 
breaking  out  of  the  Civil  War.  He  enlisted  at  the  beginning 
of  the  War  and  served  as  First  Lieutenant  of  Company  B, 
Eighth  Wisconsin  Regiment,  until  1864,  when  he  was  com- 
pelled by  physical  infirmity  to  resign  his  commission.  He 
was  an  excellent  soldier.  He  sustained  an  injury  to  one 
of  his  eyes,  which  caused  him  much  pain  through  life,  until 
a  few  years  before  his  death  he  lost  the  sight  of  that  eye 

After  his  return  from  the  war,  he  began  the  practice  of 
the  law  anew,  in  which  he  gained  great  distinction.  For 
many  years,  and  until  his  death,  he  was  the  acknowledged 
leader  of  the  Bar  of  his  State.  He  was  a  member  of  the 
State  Legislature  of  Minnesota  in  1867,  United  States  Dis- 
trict Attorney  from  1868  till  1873,  and  Governor  of  the 
State  in  1874  and  1875.  He  was  one  of  the  Regents  of 
the  State  University  of  Minnesota  from  1892  to  1898.  In 
1887  he  was  elected  United  States  Senator,  and  reelected  in 
1893  and  1899.  He  held  the  office  of  Senator  until  his  death. 
He  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
from  March,  1897,  till  his  death.  He  was  one  of  the  Com- 
missioners who  negotiated  the  Treaty  of  Paris  with  Spain. 
IS  193 


He  was  a  great  lover  of  books,  of  whicli  he  had  a  costly 
collection.  He  knew  Shakespeare  very  thoroughly,  and 
was  the  author  of  a  book  called  ' '  The  Law  of  Shakespeare. ' ' 

He  was  also  a  zealous  and  thorough  student  of  the  career 
of  Napoleon,  whose  civic  and  military  career  he  greatly 
admired.  His  mind  was  a  marvellous  storehouse  of  liter- 
ary gems  which  were  unknown  to  most  scholars,  but  re- 
warded his  diligent  search  and  loving  study  of  his  books. 

Many  good  stories  are  told  by  his  companions  of  the 
Bar  and  in  public  life  of  his  apt  quotations.  It  is  said  that 
he  once  defended  a  Judge  in  an  impeachment  case.  The 
point  involved  was  the  power  of  the  court  to  punish  for 
contempt,  and  Davis  quoted  in  support  of  his  position  the 
splendid  and  well-known  lines  of  Henry  the  Fourth,  in  the 
famous  scene  where  the  Chief  Justice  punishes  the  Prince 
of  Wales  for  contempt  of  the  judicial  office  and  authority. 
For  this  anecdote,  the  writer  is  indebted  to  Senator  Lodge. 
In  the  Senate,  during  the  Hawaiian  debate,  he  quoted  this 
passage  from  Juvenal : 

Sed  quo  ceeidit  sub  crimine;  quisnam 
Delator?  quibus  judiciis;  quo  teste  probavit? 
Nil  horum;  verbosa  et  grandis  epistola  venit 
A  Capreis.    Bene  habet;  nul  plus  interrogo. 

He  then  proceeded : 

"My  friend  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Hoar)  requests  me 
to  translate  that.  He  does  not  need  it,  of  course.  But 
another  Senator  (Mr.  Washburn)  suggests  that  some  of  the 
rest  of  us  do.  I  will  not  attempt  to  give  a  literal  transla- 
tion, but  I  will  give  an  accurate  paraphrase,  which  will 
show  its  application  'Into  what  crime  has  he  fallen? 
By  what  informer  has  he  been  accused!  What  judge  has 
passed  upon  him?  What  witness  has  testified  against  him? 
Not  one  or  any  of  these.  A  verbose  and  turgid  message 
has  come  over  from  Capri.  That  settles  it.  I  will  inter- 
rogate no  further.'  " 

The  most  ardent  admirers  of  the  then  President,  Mr. 
Cleveland,  could  not  help  joining  in  the  laugh. 


Mr.  Davis  took  great  delight  in  his  descent  from  the 
early  settlers  of  Plymouth,  and  valued  exceedingly  the 
good  will  of  the  people  of  Massachusetts.  The  members 
of  the  Society  who  were  fortunate  enough  to  meet  him  will 
not  forget  their  delight  in  his  pleasant  companionship, 
when  he  visited  Massachusetts  a  few  years  ago  to  attend 
our  meeting  and  contribute  a  paper  to  our  Proceedings. 
He  had  hoped  to  repeat  the  visit. 

I  prefer,  instead  of  undertaking  to  complete  this  imper- 
fect sketch  by  a  new  portraiture  of  my  honored  friend,  to 
add  what  I  said  in  the  Senate,  when  the  loss  of  Mr.  Davis 

was  still  recent:— 

■  ■■••  ■  -J 

"Mr.  Peesidbnt:  There  is  no  Senator  who  would  not  be 
glad  to  lay  a  wreath  of  honor  and  affection  on  the  monu- 
ment of  Cushman  K.  Davis.  That,  however,  is  more  espe- 
cially the  right  of  his  colleague  and  his  successor  and  the 
members  of  the  great  Committee  where  he  won  so  much  of 
his  fame.     I  ought  to  say  but  a  few  words. 

"The  Senate,  as  its  name  implies,  has  been  from  the 
beginning,  with  few  exceptions,  an  assembly  of  old  men.  In 
the  course  of  nature  many  of  its  members  die  in  office.  That 
has  been  true  of  thirty-eight  Senators  since  I  came  to  the 
Capitol.  Others,  a  yet  larger  number,  die  soon  after  they 
leave  office.  Of  the  men  with  whom  I  have  served  in  this 
Chamber  fifty-eight  more  are  now  dead,  making  in  all  ninety- 
six,  enough  and  to  spare  to  organize  another  Senate  else- 
where. To  that  number  has  been  added  every  Vice-Presi- 
dent but  two.  Upon  those  who  have  died  in  office  eulogies 
have  been  pronounced  in  this  Chamber  and  in  the  House. 
The  speakers  have  obeyed  the  rule  demanded  by  the  decen- 
cies of  funeral  occasions— nil  de  mortuis  nisi  bonum— if  not 
the  command  born  of  a  tenderer  pity  for  human  frailty- 
jam  parce  sepulto.  But  in  general,  with  scarcely  an  excep- 
tion, the  portraitures  have  been  true  and  faithful.  They 
prove  that  the  people  of  the  American  States,  speaking 
through  their  legislative  assemblies,  are  not  likely  to  select 
men  to  represent  them  in  this  august  assembly  who  are  lack- 
ing in  high  qualities  either  of  intellect  or  of  character. 


However  that  may  be,  it  is  surely  true  of  Mr.  Davis  that 
whatever  has  been  or  will  be  said  of  him  to-day,  or  was  said 
of  him  when  the  news  of  his  death  first  shocked  the  country, 
is  just  what  would  have  been  said  when  he  was  alive  by  any 
man  who  knew  him.  I  have  served  with  him  here  nearly 
fourteen  years.  I  have  agreed  with  him  and  I  have  differed 
from  him  in  regard  to  matters  of  great  pith  and  moment 
which  deeply  stirred  the  feelings  of  the  people,  as  they  did 
mine,  and  doubtless  did  his  own.  I  never  heard  any  man 
speak  of  him  but  with  respect  and  kindness. 

"Of  course,  Mr.  President,  in  this  great  century  which  is 
just  over,  when  our  Republic— this  infant  Hercules— has 
been  growing  from  its  cradle  to  its  still  youthful  manhood, 
the  greatest  place  for  a  live  man  has  been  that  of  a  soldier 
in  time  of  war  and  that  of  a  statesman  in  time  of  peace. 
Cushman  K.  Davis  was  both.  He  did  a  man's  full  duty  in 
both.  No  man  values  more  than  I  do  the  function  of  the 
man  of  letters.  No  man  reveres  more  than  I  do  the  man  of 
genius  who  in  a  loving  and  reverent  way  writes  the  history 
of  a  great  people,  or  the  poet  from  whose  lyre  comes  the 
inspiration  which  induces  heroic  action  in  war  and  peace. 
But  I  do  not  admit  that  the  title  of  the  historian  or  that  of 
the  poet  to  the  gratitude  and  affection  of  mankind  is  greater 
than  that  of  the  soldier  who  saves  nations,  or  that  of  the 
statesman  who  creates  or  preserves  them,  or  who  makes 
them  great.  I  have  no  patience  when  I  read  that  famous 
speech  of  Gladstone,  he  and  Tennyson  being  together  on  a 
journey,  when  he  modestly  puts  Mr.  Tennyson's  title  to  the 
gratitude  of  mankind  far  above  his  own.  Gladstone,  then 
Prime  Minister,  declared  that  Tennyson  would  be  remem- 
bered long  after  he  was  forgotten.  That  may  be  true.  But 
whether  a  man  be  remembered  or  whether  he  be  forgotten ; 
whether  his  work  be  appreciated  or  no ;  whether  his  work  be 
known  or  unknown  at  the  time  it  is  accomplished,  is  not  the 
test  of  its  greatness  or  its  value  to  mankind.  The  man  who 
keeps  this  moral  being,  or  helps  to  keep  this  moral  being  we 
call  a  State  in  the  paths  of  justice  and  righteousness  and 
happiness,  the  direct  effect  of  whose  action  is  felt  in  the  com- 
fort and  happiness  and  moral  life  of  millions  upon  millions 


of  human  lives,  who  opens  and  constructs  great  highways  of 
commerce,  who  makes  schools  and  universities  not  only  pos- 
sible but  plenty,  who  brings  to  pass  great  policies  that  allure 
men  from  misery,  and  poverty,  and  oppression,  and  serfdom 
in  one  world,  to  free,  contended,  happy,  prosperous  homes 
in  another,  is  a  great  benefactor  to  mankind,  whether  his 
work  be  accomplished  with  sounding  of  trumpets,  or  stamp- 
ing of  feet,  or  clapping  of  hands,  or  the  roar  and  tumult  of 
popular  applause,  or  whether  it  be  done  in  the  silence  of 
some  committee  room,  and  no  man  know  it  but  by  its  results. 
"I  am  not  ready  to  admit  that  even  Shakespeare  worked 
on  a  higher  plane,  or  was  a  greater  power  on  earth,  than 
King  Alfred  or  George  Washington,  even  if  it  be  that  he 
will  survive  them  both  in  the  memory  of  man.  The  name 
of  every  man  but  one  who  fought  with  Leonidas  at  Ther- 
mopylae is  forgotten.  But  is  ^schylus  greater  than  Leon- 
idas, or  Miltiades,  or  Themistocles  *?  The  literature  of 
Athens  preserves  to  immortality  the  fame  of  its  great 
authors.  But  it  was  Solon,  and  Pericles,  and  Miltiades  that 
created  and  saved  and  made  great  the  city,  without  which 
the  poets  could  not  have  existed.  Mr.  Tennyson  himself 
came  nearer  the  truth  than  his  friend,  Mr.  Gladstone,  when 

he  said: 


That,  througli  the  channels  of  the  state, 

Conveys  the  people's  wish,  is  great; 

His  name  is  pure;  his  fame  is  free. 

' '  There  have  been  soldiers  whose  courage  saved  the  day 
in  great  decisive  battles  when  the  fate  of  nations  hung  in  the 
scale,  yet  whose  most  enduring  monument  was  the  column 
of  smoke  which  rose  when  their  death  shot  was  fired.  There 
have  been  statesmen  whose  silent  influence  has  decided  the 
issue  when  the  country  was  at  the  parting  of  the  ways,  of 
whose  service  history  takes  no  heed.  The  great  Ohio  Terri- 
tory, now  six  imperial  States,  was  twice  saved  to  freedom 
by  the  almost  unnoticed  action  of  a  single  man.  With  all  re- 
spect for  the  man  of  letters,  we  are  not  yet  quite  ready  to 
admit  that  the  trumpeter  is  better  than  the  soldier,  or  the 
painter  greater  than  the  lion. 


' '  There  is  no  need  of  many  words  to  sum  up  the  life  and 
character  of  Cushman  Davis.  His  life  was  in  the  daylight. 
Minnesota  knew  him.  His  country  knew  him  and  loved 
him.  He  was  a  good  soldier  in  his  youth,  and  a  great  Sena- 
tor in  his  maturer  manhood.  What  can  be  said  more,  or 
what  can  be  said  better,  to  sum  up  the  life  of  an  American 
citizen?  He  offered  his  life  for  his  country  when  life  was 
all  before  him.  His  State  and  his  country  rewarded  him 
with  their  highest  honor.  The  great  orator  and  philosopher 
of  Eome  declared  in  his  youth,  and  repeated  in  his  age,  that 
death  could  not  come  prematurely  to  a  man  who  had  been 
Consul.  This  man  surely  might  be  accounted  ready  to  die. 
He  had  discharged  honorably  life's  highest  duty,  and  his 
cup  of  honor  and  of  glory  was  full. 

"We  are  thinking  to-day  of  something  more  than  a  public 
sorrow.  We  are  mourning  the  loss  of  a  close  and  delightful 
companionship,  a  companionship  which  lightened  public 
care  and  gave  infinite  pleasure  to  private  intercourse.  If 
he  had  never  held  office,  if  his  name  had  never  been  heard 
even  beyond  the  boundaries  of  a  single  municipality,  he 
would  have  been  almost  anywhere  a  favorite  and  foremost 
citizen.  He  was,  in  the  first  place,  always  a  gentleman ;  and 
a  true  gentleman  always  gives  tone  to  any  company  in  which 
he  is  found,  whether  it  be  among  the  rulers  of  States  or  the 
humblest  gathering  of  friendly  neighbors.  Lord  Erskine 
said  on  a  great  occasion : 

"'It  is  impossible  to  define  in  terms  the  proper  feelings 
of  a  gentleman ;  but  their  existence  has  supported  this  coun- 
try for  many  ages,  and  she  might  perish  if  they  were  lost. ' 

"Certainly  our  friend  had  this  quality.  He  was  every- 
where a  gentleman.  He  met  every  occasion  in  life  with  a 
simple  and  quiet  courtesy.  There  was  not  much  of  defer- 
ence in  it.  There  was  no  yielding  or  supplication  or  timid- 
ity in  it.  I  do  not  think  he  ever  asked  favors,  though  no 
man  was  more  willing  to  grant  them.  But  there  is  some- 
thing more  than  this  in  the  temper  of  which  I  am  speaking. 
The  man  who  possesses  it  gives  unconsciously  to  himself  or 
to  his  associates  tone  to  every  circle,  as  I  just  said,  in  which 
he  is  found.     So,  wherever  he  was,  his  manner  of  behavior 


prevailed,  whatever  might  have  happened  to  the  same  men 
if  they  had  been  left  alone. 

Senator  Davis  was  a  man  who  kept  well  his  own  counsel. 
He  was  a  man  to  whom  it  was  safe  for  other  men  to  trust 
their  counsel.  His  conversation,  to  which  it  was  always  a 
delight  to  listen,  had  no  gossip  in  it.  Still  less  had  it  ever 
anything  of  ill  nature  or  sarcasm.  He  liked  to  share  with 
a  friend  the  pleasure  he  took  in  finding  some  flower  or  gem 
of  literature  which,  for  long  ages  till  he  found  it  in  some 
out-of-the-way  nook,  had— 

Blushed  unseen, 
And  wasted  its  sweetness  on  the  desert  air. 

' '  He  had  what  Jeremy  Taylor  calls  '  the  great  endearment 
of  prudent  and  temperate  speech. ' 

"His  conversation  was  sparkling  and  witty  and  full  of 
variety,  but  no  spark  from  him  was  ever  a  cinder  in  the  eye 
of  his  friend. 

"He  had  a  learning  rare  among  public  men,  and,  for  its 
variety,  rare,  I  think,  among  scholars.  He  would  bring  out 
bits  of  history,  full  of  interest  and  instruction,  from  the 
most  obscure  sources,  in  common  conversation.  He  was  an 
excellent  Latin  scholar.  He  had  read  and  mastered  Tacitus, 
and  a  man  who  has  mastered  Tacitus  has  had  the  best  gym- 
nastic training  of  the  intellect,  both  in  vigor  and  style,  which 
the  resources  of  all  literature  can  supply. 

' '  One  secret  of  his  great  popularity  with  his  companions 
here— a  popularity  I  think  unexcelled,  indeed,  I  incline  to 
think  unequalled  by  that  of  any  other  man  with  whom  I 
have  served— is  that  to  which  the  late  Justin  Morrill  owed 
so  much.  He  never  debated.  He  rarely  answered  other 
men's  arguments,  never  with  warmth  or  heat.  But  he  was 
exceedingly  tenacious  of  his  own  opinion.  He  was,  in  the 
things  he  stood  for,  as  unyielding  as  flint  and  true  as  steel. 
But  his  flint  or  steel  never  struck  out  a  spark  by  collision 
with  any  other.  He  spoke  very  rarely  in  debate  in  general ; 
only  when  his  official  place  on  his  committee,  or  something 
which  concerned  his  own  constituents  especially,  made 
speaking  absolutely  imperative.     Then  he  gave  his  opinion 


as  a  judge  gives  it,  or  as  a  delegate  to  some  great  interna- 
tional council  might  be  supposed  to  give  it;  responsible  for 
it  himself,  but  undertaking  no  responsibility  for  other  men's 
opinion  or  conduct ;  never  assuming  that  it  was  his  duty  or 
within  his  power  to  convert,  or  change,  or  instruct  them, 
still  less  to  chastise  them.  Whether  that  way  be  the  best 
way  for  usefulness  in  a  deliberative  body,  especially  in  a 
legislative  body  of  a  great  popular  government,  I  will  not 
undertake  now  to  say.  Certainly  it  is  not  the  common  way 
here  or  elsewhere.  It  is  very  rare  indeed,  that  any  man 
possessing  the  great  literary  and  oratorical  power  of  Mr. 
Davis,  especially  a  man  to  whom  nobody  ever  thought  of 
imputing  timidity  or  undue  desire  to  enjoy  public  favor, 
or  want  of  absolute  confidence  in  his  own  opinions,  will  be 
found  to  refrain  from  employing  these  qualities  to  persuade 
or  convince  other  men.' 

' '  He  had  a  rare  and  exquisite  gift  which,  if  he  had  been  a 
man  of  letters  and  not  a  man  engaged  in  a  strenuous  public 
life,  would  have  brought  him  great  fame.  Once  in  a  while 
he  said  something  in  private,  and  more  rarely,  though  once 
or  twice,  in  a  public  speech,  which  reminded  you  of  the  deli- 
cate touch  of  Hawthorne.  His  likening  President  Cleve- 
land and  Mr.  Blount,  looking  upon  the  late  royalty  of  the 
Sandwich  Islands  with  so  much  seriousness,  to  Don  Quixote 
and  Sancho  Panza  taking  in  great  earnest  the  spectacle  of  a 
theatrical  representation  at  a  country  fair  and  eager  to 
rescue  the  distressed  damsel,  was  one  of  the  most  exquisite 
felicities  of  the  literature  of  the  Senate. 

"He  had  great  pride  in  liis  ancestry,  and  was  a  great 
lover  of  the  history  of  New  England  and  Plymouth,  from 
which  they  came,  though  he  never  gave  himself  airs  on  ac- 
count of  iti  He  was  a  descendant  of  Robert  Cushman,  the 
preacher  of  the  Pilgrims,  whose  service  was  in  a  thousand 
ways  of  such  value  to  the  little  colony  at  Plymouth.  Yet 
it  had  never  happened  to  him  to  visit  the  scenes  with  which 
the  feet  of  his  ancestors  had  been  so  familiar,  until  a  few 
years  ago  he  did  me  the  honor  to  be  my  guest  in  Massachu- 
setts, and  spent  a  few  days  in  visiting  her  historic  places. 
He  gazed  upon  Boston  and  Plymouth  and  Concord  rever- 


ently  as  ever  Moslem  gazed  upon  Mecca  or  the  feet  of 
palmer  stood  by  the  holy  sepulchre.  That  week  to  him  was 
crowded  with  a  delight  with  which  few  other  hours  in  his 
life  could  compare.  I  had  hoped  that  it  might  be  my  for- 
tune and  his  that  he  might  visit  Massachusetts  again,  that 
her  people  might  gather  in  her  cities  to  do  him  honor,  and 
might  learn  to  know  him  better,  and  might  listen  to  the  sin- 
cere eloquence  of  his  voice.     But  it  was  ordered  otherwise. 

"There  are  other  things  his  country  had  hoped  for  him. 
She  had  hoped  a  longer  and  higher  service,  perhaps  the 
highest  service  of  all.  But  the  fatal  and  inexorable  shaft 
has  stricken  him  down  in  the  full  vigor  of  a  yet  strenuous 
manhood.  The  great  transactions  in  which  he  had  borne 
so  large  a  part  still  remain  incomplete  and  their  event  is  still 

"There  is  a  painting  which  a  great  Italian  master  left 
unfinished.  The  work  was  taken  up  and  completed  by  a 
disciple.  The  finished  picture  bears  this  inscription :  '  What 
Titian  left  unfinished,  Palma  reverently  completed,  and  dedi- 
cated to  God.'  So  may  our  beloved  Eepublic  find  always, 
"when  one  servant  leaves  his  work  unfinished,  another  who 
w^ill  take  it  up  and  dedicate  it  to  the  country  and  to  God. ' ' 



One  of  the  most  delightful  friendships  of  my  life  was  with 
George  Bancroft,  the  famous  historian.  I  never  knew  him 
until  I  went  to  "Washington  in  1877.  But  we  established  at 
once,  as  matter  of  course,  the  relation  of  an  intimate  friend- 
ship. He  was  born  in  Worcester,  to  which  he  was  much 
attached,  though  he  had  spent  little  of  his  life  there  after 
he  had  left  college.  Mrs.  Bancroft  had  known  my  oldest 
brother  and  sister  intimately,  when  she  lived  in  Boston.  I 
had  learned  from  Mr.  Emerson,  who  rarely  gave  his  praise 
lightly,  as  well  as  from  my  own  study,  to  value  Mr.  Ban- 
croft very  highly  as  a  historian,  which  he  soon  found  out. 

I  almost  always  found  him  waiting  for  me  on  the  door- 
step of  my  dwelling  when  I  came  from  church  the  first  Sun- 
day after  I  reached  Washington,  at  the  beginning  of  a  ses- 
sion. I  have  enjoyed  many  hours  at  his  table,  rendered 
delightful  by  the  conversation  of  the  eminent  guests  whom 
he  gathered  there,  but  by  no  conversation  more  delightful 
than  his  own. 

Mr.  Bancroft  had  two  enthusiasms  which  made  him  a  great 
historian— an  enthusiasm  for  truth  which  spared  no  labor 
and  left  no  stores  of  information  unsearched,  and  an 
enthusiastic  love  of  country.  He  believed  that  the  great 
emotions  and  motives  which  move  a  free  people  are  the- 
noble,  not  the  mean  motives.  He  has  written  and  inter- 
preted the  history  of  the  United  States  in  that  faith.  I  be- 
lieve his  work  will  endure  so  long  as  the  love  of  liberty  shall 
endure.  I  gave  my  estimate  of  him  at  a  meeting  of  the 
American  Antiquarian  Society,  of  which  we  were  both 
chosen  Vice-Presidents,  in  October,  1880,  just  after  the  com- 
pletion of  his  eightieth  year  and  of  his  "History  of  the 
United  States,"  as  follows: 



"It  is  not  usual  to  discuss  the  report  of  the  committee  to 
propose  a  list  of  officers.  But  one  of  the  names  reported 
gives  special  interest  to  the  occasion.  On  the  third  of  this 
month  of  October,  our  honored  associate  Mr.  Bancroft  com- 
pleted his  eightieth  year.  At  the  same  time  he  completed 
his  'History  of  the  United  States'  to  the  formation  of  the 
Federal  Constitution. 

"This  Society,  while  it  is  national  and  continental  in  the 
scope  of  its  investigations,  strikes  down  its  roots  into  the 
soil  of  this  locality,  where  its  founder  dwelt,  and  where  its 
collections  are  kept. 

"For  both  these  reasons  we  cherish  our  relations  to  Mr. 
Bancroft.  He  was  born  within  a  few  rods  of  this  spot.  He 
is  descended  by  the  mother's  side  from  an  old  Worcester 
County  family  who  were  conspicuous  in  the  administration 
of  its  public  affairs  long  before  the  Eevolution.  His  father 
was  one  of  the  six  persons  who  petitioned  for  the  act  of  in- 
corporation of  this  Society,  and  one  of  its  first  members. 
His  brother  by  marriage,  Governor  Davis,  was  your  pred- 
ecessor in  the  President's  chair. 

"These  reasons  would  be  enough  to  induce  us  to  value 
our  relation.  But  he  has  filled  a  highly  honorable  and  con- 
spicuous place  in  public  life.  He  is,  I  believe,  the  senior 
person  living  who  has  been  a  member  of  the  Cabinet.  He  is 
the  senior  among  living  persons  who  have  filled  important 
diplomatic  stations.  He  has  represented  the  United  States 
at  Berlin  and  at  St.  James. 

' '  His  history  is,  and  doubtless  will  be,  the  great  standard 
authority  upon  the  important  period  which  it  covers.  He 
is  the  only  person  living  whose  judgment  would  change  the 
place  in  public  estimation  held  by  any  of  the  great  states- 
men of  the  Eevolutionary  times.  He  has  had  the  rare  good 
fortune  among  men  of  letters,  to  have  proposed  to  himself 
a  great  task,  requiring  a  lifetime  for  its  accomplishment,  the 
successful  achievement  of  which  is  enough  to  make  any  life 
illustrious,  and  to  have  lived  to  complete  it  with  powers  of 
body  and  mind  undiminished.  It  is  his  fate  to  know,  while 
alive,  the  estimate  in  which  he  will  be  held  by  posterity.     In 


his  case,  that  knowledge  can  be  only  a  source  of  pleasure 
and  satisfaction. 

"In  this  Mr.  Bancroft  resembles  Gibbon.  "We  all  remem- 
ber Gibbon's  delightful  account  of  the  completion  of  his 
great  work. 

"In  another  thing,  alone  among  great  historians,  Mr. 
Bancroft  resembles  Gibbon.  As  an  artist  he  has  accom- 
plished that  most  difficult  task  of  composing  a  history  made 
up  of  many  separate  threads,  which  must  keep  on  side  by 
side,  yet  all  be  subordinate  to  one  main  and  predominant 
stream.  But  his  narrative  never  loses  its  constant  and  fas- 
cinating interest.  No  other  historian,  I  believe,  except 
Gibbon,  has  attempted  this  without  becoming  insufferably 

"Mr.  Bancroft  tells  the  story  of  thirteen  States,  separate, 
yet  blending  into  one  National  life.  It  is  one  of  the  most 
wonderful  things  in  our  history,  that  the  separate  States 
having  so  much  in  common,  have  preserved  so  completely, 
even  to  the  present  time,  their  original  and  individual 
characteristics.  Rhode  Island,  held  in  the  hollow  of  the 
hand  of  Massachusetts;  Connecticut,  so  placed  that  one 
would  think  it  would  become  a  province  of  New  York ;  Dela- 
ware, whose  chief  city  is  but  twenty-five  miles  from  Phila- 
delphia, yet  preserve  their  distinctive  characteristics  as  if 
they  were  states  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  whose  people 
speak  a  different  language.  This  shows  how  perfectly  state 
rights  and  state  freedom  are  preserved  in  spite  of  our  Na- 
tional union,  how  little  the  power  at  the  centre  interferes 
with  the  important  things  that  affect  the  character  of  a  peo- 
ple. Why  is  it  that  little  Delaware  remains  Delaware  in 
spite  of  Pennsylvania,  and  little  Ehode  Island  remains 
Ehode  Island  notwithstanding  her  neighbor  Massachusetts'? 

What  makes  the  meadow  flower  its  bloom  unfold? 

Because  the  lovely  little  flower  is  free 
Down  to  its  roots,  and  in  that  freedom  bold. 

And  so  the  grandeur  of  the  forest  tree 
Comes,  not  from  casting  in  a  formal  mould, 

But  from  its  own  divine  vitality. 


"But  Mr.  Bancroft  is  more  fortunate  than  Gibbon. 
Gibbon  wrote  of  decline,  of  decay,  of  dissolution,  and  death ; 
of  the  days,  to  use  his  own  words,  'when  giants  were  be- 
coming pigmies.'  Bancroft  tells  the  story  of  birth,  and 
growth,  and  youth,  and  life.  His  name  is  to  be  inseparably 
associated  with  a  great  and  interesting  period  in  the  world 's 
history ;  with  what  in  the  proud  imagination  of  his  country- 
men must  ever  be  the  greatest  and  most  interesting  of  all 
periods,  when  pigmy  villages  were  becoming  giant  States. 
I  am  sure  that  it  is  a  delight  to  this  assembly  of  distin- 
guished scholars,  assembled  near  his  birthplace,  to  send 
him,  at  the  completion  of  his  great  work,  and  of  his  eightieth 
year,  their  cordial  salutation. ' ' 

I  went  to  see  Mr.  Bancroft  on  the  evening  of  the  last  Sun- 
day in  December,  1890.  He  was  sitting  in  his  library  up 
stairs.  He  received  me  in  his  usual  emphatic  manner,  tak- 
ing both  my  hands  and  saying,  ' '  My  dear  friend,  how  glad 
I  am  to  see  you ! "  He  was  alone.  He  evidently  knew  me 
when  I  went  in,  and  inquired  about  Worcester,  as  he  com- 
monly did,  and  expressed  his  amazement  at  its  remarkable 

I  stayed  with  him  about  twenty  or  thirty  minutes.  The 
topics  of  our  conversation  were,  I  believe,  suggested  by  me, 
and  the  whole  conversation  was  one  which  gave  evidence  of 
full  understanding  on  his  part  of  what  we  were  talking 
about.  It  was  not  merely  an  old  man's  memory  of  the  past, 
but  the  fresh  and  vigorous  thought  on  new  topics  which 
were  suggested  to  him  in  the  course  of  the  conversation.  I 
think  he  exhibited  a  quickness  and  vigor  of  thought  and  in- 
telligence and  spoke  with  a  beauty  of  diction  that  no  man 
I  know  could  have  surpassed. 

I  asked  him  if  he  could  account  for  the  interest  in  his- 
torical study  among  the  older  Harvard  graduates,  and  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  the  principal  historians  of  this  country, 
including  himself,  Prescott,  Sparks,  Motley,  Palfrey  and 
Parkman,  were  all  Harvard  men  and  were  eminent  at  a 
time  when  there  were  scarcely  any  other  eminent  historical 
scholars  in  America.    He  did  not  directly  answer  this  ques- 


tion,  but  said  that  his  own  inclination  toward  history,  he 
thought,  was  due  very  much  to  the  influence  of  his  father. 
He  said  his  father  would  have  been  a  very  eminent  his- 
torian, if  he  had  had  material  at  his  command,  and  that  he 
had  a  remarkably  judicious  mind. 

He  spoke  of  some  clergymen,  especially  the  Unitarian 
clergymen,  so  many  of  whom  belonged  to  Harvard  at  his 
time.  He  said  he  had  little  sympathy  for  the  Unitarianism 
of  his  day,  "for  its  theology,  no;  for  its  spirituality,  yes." 

He  asked  me  about  the  Election  Bill  pending  in  the  Sen-- 
ate.  I  spoke  of  the  great  storm  of  abuse  I  had  had  to  en- 
counter for  advocating  it,  but  said  I  thought  on  the  whole 
the  feeling  between  the  different  sections  of  the  country  and 
different  political  parties  was  better  than  it  ever  had  been 
before  in  this  country,  and  much  better  than  that  which  now 
existed  between  different  political  parties  in  foreign  coun- 
tries. He  cordially  agreed  to  this,  and  made  some  observa- 
tions which  I  do  not  now  recall,  but  which  were  interesting 
and  bright. 

After  we  had  talked  together  for  some  time,  he  said :  ' '  My 
memory  is  very  poor:  I  cannot  remember  your  first  name." 
I  said:  "It  is  the  same  as  yours,  Mr.  Bancroft— George." 
He  paused  a  moment  with  an  amused  and  puzzled  look,  and 
said :  ' '  What  is  your  last  name  ? ' '  He  had  evidently  known 
me  very  well  during  most  of  the  preceding  part  of  the  inter- 

I  told  his  son  about  this  conversation  the  day  after  Mr. 
Bancroft's  death.  He  said  that  the  presence  of  a  visitor 
acted  in  this  way  as  a  stimulant,  but  that  he  had  not  lately 
shown  much  intelligence  in  the  family,  seeming  lost  and 



[1860,  1868,  1871] 

I  WAS  bom  witMn  a  mile  of  the  spot  where  the  War  of 
the  Eevolution  began.  My  ancestors  and  other  kindred  on 
both  sides  took  an  active  and  prominent  part  in  the  struggle 
with  England.  I  am  descended  from  the  early  Puritans  of 
Massachusetts  in  every  line  of  descent.  So  it  will  readily 
be  believed  that  all  my  feeling  and  sympathy  have  been  on 
the  side  of  my  country  in  the  great  controversy  with  Eng- 
land, which  began  with  the  exile  of  the  Pilgrims  in  1620  and 
continued,  with  little  interruption,  until  our  last  great 
quarrel  with  her,  which  ended  with  the  arbitration  at  Geneva. 
Yet  I  am  a  passionate  lover  of  England.  Before  I  ever 
went  abroad,  I  longed  to  visit  the  places  famous  in  her  his- 
tory, as  a  child  longs  to  go  home  to  his  birthplace. 

I  have  visited  Europe  six  times.  On  each  occasion  I  de- 
voted the  largest  part  of  my  time  to  Great  Britain.  The 
desire  to  see  England  again  has  increased  with  every  visit. 
Certainly  there  is  nothing  like  England,  and  there  never  has 
been  anything  like  England  in  the  world.  Her  wonderful 
history,  her  wonderful  literature,  the  beauty  of  her  archi- 
tecture, the  historic  and  poetic  associations  which  cluster 
about  every  street  and  river  and  mountain  and  valley,  her 
vigorous  life,  the  sweetness  and  beauty  of  her  women,  the 
superb  manhood  of  her  men,  her  navy,  her  gracious  hos- 
pitality, her  courage  and  her  lofty  pride— although  some 
single  race  of  people  may  have  excelled  her  in  a  single  par- 
ticular—make up  a  combination  never  equalled  in  the  world. 
I  am,  of  course,  not  to  be  understood  to  bring  my  own 
country  into  the  comparison. 

The  first  time  I  went  abroad  was  in  1860.  I  had  for  a 
companion  my  friend  from  infancy,  George  M.  Brooks,  of 



Concord.  We  travelled  like  a  couple  of  Bohemians,  never 
riding  where  we  could  walk;  lunching  or  dining  where  he 
happened  to  find  ourselves  when  we  were  hungry;  taking 
second  or  third  class  carriages  on  the  railroads,  and  getting 
into  conversation  with  anybody  who  would  talk  to  us.  I 
doubt  whether  I  shall  ever  have  in  this  world,  or  in  another, 
a  sensation  more  delicious  than  that  I  had  when  the  old 
steamer,  "America,"  steamed  up  the  Channel  toward  the 
mouth  of  the  Mersey,  with  the  green  shores  of  Ireland  on 
one  side  and  England  on  the  other.  I  am  afraid  if  I  were 
to  relate  the  story  of  that  journey,  it  would  be  only  to  please 
myself  by  reviving  its  recollections,  and  not  for  the  delight 
of  my  readers,  so  many  of  whom  have  a  similar  memory  of 
their  own. 

We  heard  John  Bright  and  Lord  John  Eussell  and  Lord 
Palmerston  in  a  great  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  on 
the  paper  duties,  and  saw  Lord  Brougham  walking  back- 
ward and  forward  on  the  terrace  by  Brougham  Castle,  near 
Penrith.  We  saw  Edinburgh  and  the  Trosachs,  and  Abbots- 
ford  and  Stirling.  I  had  been  a  loving  reader  of  Scott  from 
my  childhood,  and  was  almost  as  much  at  home  in  Scotland 
as  if  I  had  been  born  in  the  Canongate  or  the  Saltmarket. 
I  had  had  a  special  fancy  for  reading  and  studying  topo- 
graphical books  on  London,  and  found  myself,  pretty  soon, 
so  much  at  home  there  that  I  think  I  could  have  made  a  very 
decent  living  as  a  guide. 

We  spent  a  month  in  Switzerland.  I  made  the  journey 
over  the  mountain  passes  on  foot,  keeping  up  with  my  com- 
panion, who  had  a  horse  or  a  mule.  I  could  walk  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  miles  a  day  without  great  fatigue. 

Augustus  Flagg  of  the  famous  book-selling  firm  of  Little 
&  Brown,  with  whom  I  had  dealt  a  great  deal,  was  on  the 
ship  when  I  went  out.  He  went  abroad  to  purchase  books 
for  his  house.  In  those  days  the  book-stalls  in  London 
were  mines  of  rare  treasures.  They  had  not  been  much 
examined  by  collectors  or  dealers,  and  the  men  who  kept 
them  did  not  know  the  value  of  books  that  were  almost  price- 
less in  the  eyes  of  virtuosos.  Mr.  Flagg  and  I  spent 
together  a  good  many  days  in  ransacking  the  old  book-stalls 


and  shops,  some  of  them  in  out-of-the-way  places  in  the  old 
city,  even  below  the  Tower.  I  could  not  afford  to  buy  a 
great  many  books  then.  But  I  knew  something  about  them, 
and  the  experience  was  like  having  in  my  hands  the  costliest 
rubies  or  diamonds. 

The  journey  each  way,  which  now  takes  six  or  seven 
days,  then  took  fourteen.  The  Cunard  steamer,  whose  suc- 
cessor, with  its  bilge  keel  and  its  vastly  greater  size,  is  as 
comfortable,  even  in  very  rough  weather,  as  the  first  class 
city  hotel,  was  as  disagreeable  in  rough  weather,  to  a  man 
unaccustomed  to  the  ocean,  as  a  fishing-smack.  But  the  pas- 
sengers got  well  acquainted  with  one  another.  There  was 
agreeable  society  on  board,  and  the  days  passed  pleasantly. 

Among  the  passengers  was  Joseph  Coolidge  of  Boston, 
father  of  Thomas  Jefferson  Coolidge,  late  Minister  to 
France.  Mr.  Coolidge  had  been  a  great  traveller  in  his 
day ;  had  had  some  commercial  occupations  in  the  East,  and 
was  very  pleasant  company.  His  wife  was  a  granddaugh- 
ter of  Mr.  Jefferson.  He  told  me  that  two  of  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son's daughters— or  granddaughters,  I  am  not  now  abso- 
lutely sure  which— had  kept  school  and  earned  money, 
which  they  had  applied  to  the  payment  of  Mr.  Jefferson's 
debts.  The  story  was  highly  creditable  to  these  Virginia 
ladies,  who  might  well  have  thought  that  their  illustrious 
ancestor's  service  might  excuse  his  family  from  making 
sacrifices  in  discharge  of  such  an  obligation,  if  his  country- 
men at  large  did  not  feel  its  force. 

I  went  over  pretty  much  the  same  ground  in  1868  with 
three  ladies.  I  made  both  these  journeys  as  an  ordinary 
sightseer.  I  took  few  letters  of  introduction.  I  did  not 
deliver  those,  except  in  one  or  two  cases  to  American  gen- 
tlemen living  abroad. 

One  experience  in  this  latter  journey,  however,  it  may  be 
worth  while  to  tell.  I  had  a  very  pleasant  friendship  with 
Henry  T.  Parker,  a  Boston  man  and  a  graduate  of  Harvard, 
who  had  a  comfortable  property  and  had  married  an  English 
lady  and  had  settled  in  London.  He  found  an  occupation, 
congenial  to  his  own  taste,  in  buying  books,  as  agent  of  some 



of  the  great  libraries  in  the  United  States,  inclnding  the 
Harvard  Library  and  the  Boston  City  Library.  He  was  an 
intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Cox,  the  accomplished  Librarian  of 
the  Bodleian,  to  whom  he  gave  us  letters. 

Mr.  Cox  treated  us  with  special  courtesy  and  showed  us 
many  treasures  of  the  Library,  especially  some  wonderful 
illuminated  manuscripts.  One  of  them,  the  Due  de  Mont- 
pensier,  who  had  been  at  Oxford  shortly  before  and  who  was 
an  authority  in  such  matters,  felt  confident  was  illustrated 
by  Eaphael.  Mr.  Cox  had  discovered,  just  before  I  was 
there,  in  some  crypt  where  it  had  lain  unknown  for  two  hun- 
dred years,  a  touching  letter  from  Clarendon,  who  was  Chan- 
cellor of  the  University,  which  I  think  will  move  the  heart 
of  every  man  who  loves  the  college  where  he  was  educated. 
The  letter  was  written  by  Lord  Clarendon  just  after  he  had 
landed  at  Calais,  a  hopeless  exile,  on  his  last  flight  from  the 
country  to  which  he  was  never  again  to  return.  The  great 
orator,  statesman,  historian,  lawyer,  judge,— counsellor, 
companion  and  ancestor  of  monarchs,— flying  for  his  life, 
in  his  old  age,  into  a  foreign  land,  from  the  court  of  which, 
for  a  generation,  he  had  been  the  ornament  and  head,  soon 
as  his  feet  touch  a  place  of  safety,  thinks  of  his  University. 
See  the  noble  heart  through  the  simple  and  stately  rhetoric : 

Good  Me.  Vice-Chancellok  : 

Having  found  it  necessary  to  transport  myselfe  out  of 
England,  and  not  knowing  when  it  shall  please  God  that  I 
shall  returne  againe,  it  becomes  me  to  take  care  that  the 
University  may  not  be  without  the  service  of  a  person  better 
able  to  be  of  use  to  them  than  I  am  like  to  be,  and  I  doe 
therefore  hereby  surrender  the  office  of  chancellor  into  the 
hands  of  said  University,  to  the  end  that  they  may  make 
choyce  of  some  other  person  better  qualified  to  assist  and 
protect  them,  than  I  am.  I  am  sure  he  can  never  be  more 
affectionate  to  it.  I  desire  you  as  the  last  suite  I  am  likely 
to  make  to  you,  to  believe  that  I  doe  not  fly  my  country  for 
guilt,  and  how  passionately  soever  I  am  pursued,  that  I  have 
not  done  anything  to  make  the  University  ashamed  of  me,  or 
to  repent  the  good  opinion  they  had  once  of  me,  and  though 


I  must  have  no  mention  in  your  publique  devotions,  (whicli 

I  have  always  exceedingly  valued,)  I  hope  I  shall  always  be 

remembered  in  your  private  prayers,  as 

Good  Mr.  Vice-Chancellor, 

Your  affectionate  servant, 

Caiais,  this  7-17  Dec,  1667. 

In  1871  I  went  abroad  alone.  I  spent  the  whole  time  in 
England,  except  for  a  brief  visit  to  Scotland.  My  purpose 
in  going  away  was  to  get  a  vacation.  I  meant  to  do  some 
studying  in  the  British  Museum,  especially  to  make  a  thor- 
ough study  of  the  conditions  and  economic  principles  affect- 
ing the  strife  between  capital  and  labor,  which  then  threat- 
ened both  this  country  and  England.  I  got  a  collection  of 
the  authorities  and  the  references.  But  I  did  not  find  that 
I  got  a  great  deal  of  light  from  anything  that  had  been 
written  or  said  so  far.  I  made  a  few  very  agreeable 
acquaintances.  I  had  a  letter  to  Thomas  Hughes,  and 
visited  him  at  his  house.  I  found  George  W.  Smalley,  who 
had  been  a  pupil  in  my  office,  established  in  a  delightful 
house  near  London.  He  seemed  to  be  on  terms  of  intimacy 
with  the  famous  Englishmen  who  were  the  leaders  of  both 
political  parties,  and  with  many  eminent  men  of  letters.  I 
spent  a  delightful  evening  with  Mr.  Hughes  at  a  club  which 
I  think  was  called  the  European  Club,  or  something  like 
that,  where  the  members  smoked  clay  pipes  and  drank  beer. 
There  seemed  to  be  no  other  provision  for  the  refreshment 
of  the  body  or  soul.  But  the  conversation  was  very  pleas- 
ant. The  members  sat  together  about  a  table;  and  the  con- 
versation was  quite  general  and  very  bright.  The  talk 
turned,  during  the  evening,  on  Scotsmen.  The  Englishmen 
present  seemed  to  have  something  left  of  the  old  prejudice 
about  Scotland  with  which  Dr.  Johnson  was  possessed. 
They  imputed  to  the  modern  Scotsmen  the  same  thrifty 
habit  and  capacity  for  looking  after  himself  that  prevailed 
a  hundred  years  before,  when  Dr.  Johnson  and  John  Wilkes, 
who  quarrelled  about  everything  else,  became  reconciled 
when  they  united  in  abuse  of  their  Northern  neighbors.     Sir 


Frederick  Pollock  cited  a  marginal  note  from  the  report  of 
some  old  criminal  case,  to  the  following  effect:  "Possession 
of  property  in  Scotland  evidence  of  stealing  in  England." 

I  was  guilty  of  one  piece  of  stupid  folly.  Mr.  Hughes 
kindly  proposed  to  take  me  to  see  Carlyle.  This  was  not 
very  long  after  our  war,  when  our  people  were  full  of  indig- 
nation at  Carlyle 's  bitter  and  contemptuous  speech  about 
us,  especially  his  "American  Iliad  in  a  Nutshell."  I  was 
a  little  doubtful  about  what  sort  of  a  reception  I  should  get, 
and  declined  the  invitation.  I  have  bitterly  regretted  this 
ever  since.  My  brother  visited  Carlyle  about  1846,  bearing 
with  him  a  letter  from  Emerson.  Carlyle  was  very  civil  to 
him,  and  liked  him  very  much,  as  appears  by  a  letter  from 
him  to  Mr.  Emerson. 

During  this  visit  I  heard  a  great  debate  between  Glad- 
stone and  Disraeli.  A  brief  account  of  it  will  be  found  in 
the  chapter  on  "Some  Famous  Orators  I  have  Heard." 

A  friend  in  Worcester  gave  me  a  letter  to  Mr.  Wornum, 
the  Director  of  the  National  Gallery,  with  whom  he  had 
been  a  fellow-pupil  at  Kensington.  Mr.  Wornum  received 
me  with  great  cordiality.  He  asked  me  to  come  to  the 
Gallery  the  next  day,  when  it  would  be  closed  to  the  public. 
He  said  he  would  be  glad  to  show  it  to  me  then,  when  we 
would  be  free  from  interruption.  He  was  the  author  of 
what  I  understand  to  be  an  excellent  history  of  painting,  and 
was  regarded  as  the  most  competent  judge  in  Europe  of 
the  value  and  merit  of  paintings.  I  suppose  Parliament 
would  at  any  time,  on  his  sole  recommendation,  have  given 
ten  or  twenty  or  perhaps  fifty  thousand  guineas  for  a  mas- 
terpiece. I  shall  never  forget  the  delight  of  that  day.  He 
told  me  the  history  of  the  great  paintings  in  the  National 
Gallery,  some  of  which  had  belonged  to  monarchs,  popes, 
noblemen  or  famous  merchants  of  almost  all  the  countries 
in  Europe.  He  said  that  while  there  were  many  larger 
galleries,  the  National  Gallery  was  the  best  in  the  world  as 
affording  the  best  and  most  characteristic  examples  of  every 
school  of  painting.  I  cannot  remember  much  that  was  said 
in  that  long  day,  interrupted  only  by  a  pleasant  lunch  to- 
gether.    But  it  was  a  day  full  of  romance.     It  was  as  if  I 


had  had  in  my  hand  the  crown  jewels  of  every  potentate  in 
the  world,  and  somebody  had  told  me  the  history  of  each 
gem.  For  this  picture  Francis  the  First,  or  Charles  V.,  or 
Henry  VIII.  had  been  bidders.  This  had  belonged  to 
Lorenzo  de  Medici,  or  Pope  Leo  X.  This  had  come  from 
the  famous  collection  of  Charles  I.,  scattered  through  Eu- 
rope on  his  death ;  and  this  had  belonged  to  some  nobleman 
whose  name  was  greater  than  that  of  monarchs, 

Mr.  Womum  spoke  of  his  treasures  with  an  enthusiasm 
which  no  worshipper  at  the  throne  of  any  Saint  or  Divinity 
could  surpass.  That  day  was  among  the  few  chiefest  de- 
lights of  my  life. 




My  next  visit  to  England  was  in  the  spring  of  1892.  The 
winter  before,  I  had  a  severe  attack  of  iritis,  which  left  my 
eyes  in  a  very  demoralized  condition.  I  did  not  find  much 
relief  in  this  country,  not,  I  suppose,  because  of  want  of 
skill  in  our  ophthalmic  surgeons,  but  because  of  the  impos- 
sibility of  getting  any  rest  anywhere  where  I  could  be 
reached  by  telephone  or  telegraph.  To  a  person  who  can 
bear  an  ordinary  voyage  there  is  no  retreat  like  an  ocean 
steamer.  Telephone,  telegraph,  daily  paper;  call  or  visit 
of  friend,  client,  or  constituent;  daily  mail— sometimes  it- 
self, to  a  busy  public  man,  enough  for  a  hard  day's  work- 
all  these  are  forgotten.  You  spend  your  ten  days  in  an  in- 
finite quiet  like  that  of  Heaven.  You  sit  in  your  deck-chair 
with  the  soft  sea  breeze  on  your  forehead,  as  the  mighty 
ocean  cradle  rocks  you,  and  see  the  lace  of  an  exquisite 
beauty  that  no  Tyrian  weaver  ever  devised,  breaking  over 
the  blue  or  purple  waves,  with  their  tints  that  no  Tyrian 
dye  ever  matched.  Ah!  Marconi,  Marconi,  could  not  you 
let  us  alone,  and  leave  the  tired  brain  of  humanity  one  spot 
where  this  "hodge-podge  of  business  and  trouble  and  care" 
could  not  follow  us  and  find  us  out? 

On  this  journey  I  visited  England,  France  and  Switzer- 
land. It  so  happened  that  I  had  had  a  good  deal  to  do  with 
the  appointment  of  our  Ministers  to  these  three  countries. 
Colonel  John  D.  "Washburn,  a  very  accomplished  and  de- 
lightful gentleman,  now  dead,  had  been  a  pupil  of  mine  as 
a  law  student.  He  lived  in  "Worcester  and  had  been  a  very 
eminent  member  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature.  I  think 
he  would  have  been  Governor  of  the  State  and  had  a  very 



brilliant  career  but  for  a  delicacy  of  organization  which 
made  him  break  down  in  health  when  under  any  severe 
strain  of  responsibility,  especially  such  as  involved  antag- 
onism and  conflict.  He  was  of  a  very  friendly,  gentle  dis- 
position, and  disliked  to  be  attacked  or  to  attack  other  men. 
I  told  Mr.  Blaine,  the  Secretary  of  State  when  Mr.  Harri- 
son's Administration  came  in,  that  I  had  but  one  favor  to 
ask  of  it ;  that  was,  that  he  should  send  Washburn  as  Minis- 
ter to  Switzerland.  I  had  two  or  three  very  pleasant  days 
with  him  at  Berne.  But  he  had  sent  his  family  away  and 
was  preparing  to  resign  his  place.  So  I  had  not  much  op- 
portunity of  seeing  Switzerland  under  his  guidance. 

Thomas  Jefferson  Coolidge,  then  Minister  to  France,  had 
also  been  appointed  on  my  very  earnest  recommendation. 
He  was  a  great-grandson  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  a  very  able 
business  man,  highly  esteemed  throughout  the  country.  His 
guidance  was  implicitly  followed  by  many  people  in  impor- 
tant business  transactions.  He  had  had  the  charge  of  the 
financial  affairs  of  some  large  manufacturing  corporations, 
and  was  understood  to  have  extricated  the  Northern  Pacific 
Eailroad  out  of  some  serious  difficulties,  into  which  it  fell 
again  after  he  left  its  control.  He  had  been  a  Democrat. 
But  he  had  seen  the  importance  of  the  protective  policy  to 
American  interests,  as  would  naturally  be  expected  of  a  de- 
scendant of  that  high  protectionist,  Thomas  Jefferson.  He 
had  no  sympathies  with  any  measures  that  would  debase  or 
unsettle  the  currency,  and  set  his  face  and  gave  his  power- 
ful influence  against  all  forms  of  fiat  or  irredeemable  paper 
money,  and  the  kindred  folly  of  the  free  coinage  of  silver 
by  this  country  alone,  without  the  concurrence  of  the  com- 
mercial nations  of  the  world. 

Soon  after  Mr.  Harrison's  Administration  began,  I  re- 
ceived a  message  about  nine  o'clock  one  evening,  asking  me 
to  go  to  the  White  House  at  once.  I  obeyed  the  summons. 
The  President  said  he^  desired,  if  I  had  no  objection,  to  send 
in  the  name  of  Dr.  Loring  of  Massachusetts,  as  Minister  to 
Portugal.  I  told  him  that  I  had  no  objection  whatever ;  that 
Dr.  Loring  was  an  able  man  of  agreeable  manners,  and  had 
performed  admirably  every  public  duty  he  had  undertaken. 


I  said  that  the  Doctor  had  felt  a  little  disturbed,  I  thought, 
that  I  had  refused  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  Massachusetts 
delegation  to  press  his  name  upon  the  President  for  a  Cabi- 
net office,  to  which  President  Harrison  replied,  "I  put  my 
foot  on  that  pretty  quick."  Dr.  Loring  had  been  a  great 
friend  and  supporter  of  Mr.  Blaine,  the  Secretary  of  State. 
I  conjectured,  although  the  President  did  not  say  so,  that 
the  choice  of  Dr.  Loring  had  been  made  at  the  Secretary's 

The  President  then  said  that  he  wanted  to  talk  with  me 
about  the  English  Mission,  which  had  troubled  him  a  good 
deal.  He  mentioned  the  names  of  several  prominent  men 
in  different  parts  of  the  country,  including  that  of  Eobert 
Lincoln  and  Mr.  Jewett,  an  eminent  lawyer  in  Chicago, 
whose  name  was  earnestly  pressed  upon  him  by  the  Sena- 
tors from  Illinois.  I  said  that  I  had  known  Mr.  Lincoln 
pretty  well  when  he  was  in  President  Garfield's  and  Mr. 
Arthur's  Cabinet,  and  thought  very  highly  of  him.  He  was 
a  very  modest  man  indeed,  never  pressing  any  claim  to  pub- 
lic consideration  or  office,  either  on  his  own  account  or  as 
his  father's  son,  and  never  seeking  responsibility.  But  I 
had  noticed  that  when  he  had  anything  to  say  or  anything 
to  do,  he  always  said  or  did  the  wisest  and  best  thing  to  be 
said  or  done  under  the  circumstances.  I  do  not  know  how 
much  influence  what  I  said  had,  but  it  seemed  to  gratify 
President  Harrison  exceedingly,  and  he  stated  that  he  was 
strongly  inclined  to  appoint  Mr.  Lincoln. 

I  was  told  that  the  next  morning  he  sent  for  the  two  Illi- 
nois Senators,  and  told  them  that  he  had  made  up  his  mind 
to  nominate  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  that  one  of  them,  Senator 
Farwell,  was  exceedingly  offended.  He  was  also  much  dis- 
turbed by  President  Harrison's  attitude  in  regard  to  the 
appointment  of  the  postmaster  at  Chicago.  The  result  was 
that  when  President  Harrison's  name  came  up  for  another 
nomination,  Mr.  Farwell  was  opposed  to  him,  and  when  he 
was  with  difficulty  nominated  for  reelection,  the  State  of 
Illinois  voted  for  Cleveland.  Senator  CuUom,  though  not 
liking  very  well  to  have  his  opinion  disregarded,  was  more 
discreet.     He  did  not  see  fit  to  make  the  exercise  of  the 


President's  rightful  and  Constitutional  prerogative  a  reason 
for  breaking  off  his  friendly  relations  with  the  Administra- 
tion, with  whose  principles  he  was  in  full  accord.  This  is 
an  instance  of  President  Harrison's  want  of  tact.  I  have 
little  doubt  that  if,  before  finally  "announcing  his  intention, 
he  had  sent  for  the  Illinois  Senators— as  Abraham  Lincoln 
would  have  done,  or  as  President  McKinley  would  have  done 
—gone  over  the  whole  ground  with  them,  and  told  them  his 
reasons  and  desire,  they  would  have  cheerfully  acquiesced 
in  the  conclusion  to  which  he  had  come,  and  their  friendship 
with  him  would  have  been  strengthened  and  not  weakened. 

After  saying  what  was  to  be  said  about  the  English  Mis- 
sion, I  said  to  President  Harrison:  "We  have  a  gentleman 
in  Massachusetts,  whom  I  think  it  is  very  desirable  indeed 
to  place  in  some  important  public  service;  that  is  Thomas 
Jefferson  Coolidge.  He  is  a  great-grandson  of  Mr.  Jeffer- 
son. ' '  I  said  to  the  President  the  substance  of  what  I  have 
just  stated  above,  about  Mr.  Coolidge.  I  added  that  while 
Mr.  Coolidge  would  be  an  excellent  person  for  the  English 
Mission,  which  his  uncle  Mr.  Stevenson  had  held,  yet,  of 
course,  I  did  not  think,  under  the  circumstances,  that  it 
would  be  proper  to  make  another  important  diplomatic  ap- 
pointment from  Massachusetts  just  then;  but  I  hoped  that 
an  opportunity  might  come  later.  President  Harrison 
seemed  to  be  much  impressed  with  the  suggestion,  and  said 
that  he  would  bear  it  in  mind. 

When  I  went  back  to  my  room,  it  occurred  to  me  that  I 
had  better  speak  to  Mr.  Blaine  about  it.  If  he  first  heard 
of  it  from  the  President  he  might  think  that  I  was  trying 
to  deal  with  the  President  about  matters  in  his  Department 
over  his  head  and  without  consulting  him.  So  I  went  round 
to  the  State  Department  early  the  next  morning,  and  told 
Mr.  Blaine  what  I  had  said  to  the  President.  I  found  that 
he  knew  all  about  Mr.  Coolidge.  I  inadvertently  spoke  of 
him  as  grandson  of  Mr.  Jefferson.  Blaine  immediately 
corrected  me  by  saying,  "great-grandson."  He  seemed  to 
like  the  plan  very  well. 

Nothing  came  of  the  matter  at  that  time.  But  later,  when 
the  Pan-American  Commission  was  appointed,  the  Presi- 


dent,  of  his  own  motion,  appointed  Mr.  Coolidge  as  one  of 
the  American  representatives.  Later,  I  happened  to  be  one 
day  at  the  White  House,  and  President  Harrison  told  me 
that  Whitelaw  Reid  had  announced  his  intention  of  resign- 
ing the  French  Mission  before  long.  I  reminded  him  of  our 
conversation  about  Mr.  Coolidge,  and  urged  his  name  very 
strongly  upon  him.  He  hesitated  a  good  deal.  I  got  the 
approval  of  every  New  England  Senator  but  one  to  the  pro- 
posal. The  President  still  hesitated  and  seemed  inclined  to 
appoint  Mr.  Andrew  D.  White.  But  he  finally  yielded  to 
the  urgency  for  Mr.  Coolidge.  I  should  have  been  sorry  if 
anything  I  had  done  had  resulted  in  depriving  the  country 
of  the  service  of  Andrew  D.  White.  I  suppose  him  to  be 
one  of  the  very  best  representatives  we  ever  had  abroad. 
But  an  opportunity  came  soon  after,  to  send  him  first  to  Rus- 
sia, and  then  to  Germany,  where  he  has  represented  what  is 
best  in  the  character,  ability,  desire,  interest  and  scholarship 
of  the  American  people. 

So  we  had  two  first-rate  representatives  abroad  instead 
of  one.  Mr.  Coolidge  discharged  his  functions  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  Administration,  and  to  the  universal  approval 
of  his  countrymen. 

He  received  me  when  I  visited  Paris  with  a  very  cordial 
and  delightful  hospitality.  I  had  the  pleasure  of  meeting 
at  his  house  at  dinner  M.  Ribot,  then  Prime  Minister  of 
France  and  afterward  President  of  the  French  Republic, 
and  several  others  of  the  leading  men  in  their  public  life. 
But  I  spoke  French  very  imperfectly  indeed,  and  under- 
stood it  much  less,  when  spoken  by  a  Parisian.  The  con- 
versation was,  in  general,  in  French.  So  I  got  very  little 
knowledge  of  them  by  being  in  their  society. 

My  visit  in  England  gave  me  a  good  deal  more  to  remem- 
ber. Mr.  Lincoln  also  received  me  with  great  cordiality. 
He  gave  a  dinner  at  which  several  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Liberal  Party  were  present ;  among  them,  Sir  William  Ver- 
non Harcourt.  I  had  letters  to  Sir  William  Vernon  Har- 
court,  and  to  Lord  Rosebery,  and  to  Lord  Coleridge,  Lord 
Chief  Justice  of  England.  Sir  William  Vernon  Harcourt 
and    Lord    Rosebery   each    called    on    me,    and    spent    an 


hour  at  my  room.  But  Parliament  was  dissolved  just 
at  tliat  time,  so  the  Liberal  leaders  had  at  once  to  begin 
the  campaign  which  resulted  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  victory. 
So  I  had  no  opportunity  to  make  an  intimate  acquaintance 
with  either  of  them.  I  owed  to  Dr.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes 
an  introduction  to  John  Bellows,  a  Quaker,  a  most  delight- 
ful gentleman,  the  first  authority  in  his  time  on  the  Roman 
antiquities  of  Great  Britain,  a  fine  classical  scholar  and 
learned  in  old  English  literature  and  in  the  languages  from 
which  came  the  roots  of  our  English  tongue.  I  formed  with 
him  a  close  friendship  which  ended  only  with  his  death,  in 
1902.  A  year  before  he  died  he  visited  me  in  my  home  at 
Worcester,  and  received  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  from 
Harvard.  Mr.  Bellows  is  the  author  of  the  wonderful 
French  Dictionary. 

I  spent  a  few  days  with  Lord  Coleridge  in  Devon.  His 
house  at  Ottery  St.  Mary's  is  close  to  the  spot  where  Samuel 
Taylor  Coleridge  was  born.  I  met  there  several  of  the  race. 
I  do  not  know  whether  they  were  living  in  the  neighborhood 
or  happened  to  be  there  on  a  visit. 

I  found  in  the  church,  close  by,  the  tomb  of  John  Sher- 
man, one  of  my  own  kindred,  I  have  no  doubt,  of  the  race 
which  came  from  Colchester  and  Dedham  in  Esses,  and 
Yaxley  in  Suffolk. 

The  Lord  Chief  Justice  was  much  distressed  lest  he  had 
done  wrong  in  complying  with  General  Butler's  invitation 
to  visit  him  at  Lowell.  He  said  that  many  of  his  American 
friends  had  treated  him  coldly  afterward,  and  that  his  friend 
Eichard  Dana,  whom  he  highly  esteemed,  had  refused  to 
call  upon  him  for  that  reason. 

I  told  him  he  did  absolutely  right,  in  my  opinion.  I  said 
that  General  Butler  was  then  Governor  of  the  Common- 
wealth of  Massachusetts,  and  that  an  eminent  person,  hold- 
ing a  high  official  character,  from  a  foreign  country,  could 
not  undertake  to  question  the  personal  character,  or  the  title 
to  be  considered  gentlemen,  of  the  men  whom  the  Ameri- 
can people  put  into  their  high  places. 

Lord  Coleridge  said  he  received  fifty  guineas  every  morn- 
ing for  his  services  in  the  Tichborn  trial.    ' '  But, ' '  he  added. 


"my  general  practice  in  my  profession  was  so  much  inter- 
rupted by  it  that  I  could  not  have  got  along  that  year  but 
for  my  salary  as  Attorney-General." 

He  spoke  with  great  pride  of  his  cross-examination  of  the 
Claimant.  He  said  one  of  the  papers  had  complained  that 
his  cross-examination  did  no  good  to  his  case  whatever. 
"But  I  made  him  admit  that  he  sent  his  photograph  to  some 
person,  as  the  photograph  of  Arthur  Orton."  He  said  the 
common  people  in  England  still  held  to  their  belief  that  the 
Claimant  was  the  genuine  Sir  Eoger  Tichborne,  and,  by  a 
curious  contradiction,  this  feeling  was  inspired  largely  by 
their  sympathy  with  him  as  a  man  of  humble  birth.  I  said : 
"Yes,  I  think  that  is  true.  I  heard  somebody,  a  little  while 
ago,  say  that  they  heard  two  people  talking  in  the  cars,  and 
one  of  them  said  to  the  other,  'They  wouldn't  give  him  the 
estate,  because  he  was  the  son  of  a  poor  butcher.'  "  This 
very  much  amused  the  Lord  Chief  Justice. 

I  asked  him  about  the  story  I  had  heard  and  had  verified 
some  time  before,  of  the  connection,  in  the  person  of  Lady 
EoUe,  between  two  quite  remote  periods.  Lady  EoUe  was 
alive  until  1887,  maintaining  her  health  so  that  she  gave  din- 
ner parties  in  that  year,  shortly  before  she  died.  She  was 
the  widow  of  Mr.  RoUe,  afterward  Lord  EoUe,  who  made  a 
violent  attack  on  Charles  James  Fox  in  1783.  He  was  then 
thirty-two  years  old.  From  him  the  famous  satire,  the 
EoUiad,  took  its  name.  When  he  went  to  pay  his  homage 
to  Queen  Victoria  at  her  Coronation  in  Westminster  Abbey, 
he  was  quite  feeble,  and  rolled  down  the  steps  of  the  throne. 
The  young  Queen  showed  her  kindness  of  heart  by  jumping 
up  and  going  to  help  him  up  in  person.  Some  of  the  English 
told  the  foreigners  present  at  the  ceremonial  that  that  was 
part  of  the  ceremony,  and  that  the  EoUes  held  their  lands 
on  the  tenure  of  going  through  that  performance  at  every 
coronation.  Lady  Eolle  was  married  to  her  husband  in 
1820.  He  was  then  sixty-nine,  and  she  a  young  girl  of 
twenty  years  old.  He  was  eighty  or  ninety  years  old  when 
he  died,  and  she  survived  as  his  widow  for  many  years. 
Something  came  up  on  the  subject  of  longevity  which  in- 
duced me  to  refer  to  this  story  and  ask  Lord  Coleridge  if 


it  were  true.  We  were  then  riding  out  together;  "Yes," 
said  he,  "there,"  pointing  to  a  dwelling-place  in  full  sight, 
"is  the  house  where  she  lived." 

His  Lordship  asked  me  ahout  an  American  Judge  with 
whom  he  had  some  acquaintance.  I  told  him  that  I  thought 
his  reputation  was  rather  that  of  a  jurist  than  a  Judge. 
"Oh,  yes,"  said  he,  "a  jurist  is  a  man  who  Imows  something 
about  the  law  of  every  country  but  his  own." 

Lord  Coleridge  had  a  good  reputation  as  a  story-teller. 
It  was  pleasant  to  get  an  auditor  who  seemed  to  like  to  hear 
the  stories  which  have  got  rather  too  commonplace  to  be 
worth  telling  over  here.  He  had  a  great  admiration  for 
President  Lincoln,  and  was  eager  to  hear  anything  anybody 
had  to  tell  about  him.  I  told  him  the  famous  story  of  Lin- 
coln's reply  to  the  man  who  had  left  with  him  his  poem  to 
read,  when  he  gave  it  back.  "If  anybody  likes  that  sort  of 
thing,  it's  just  the  sort  of  thing  they'd  like."  I  overheard 
his  Lordship,  as  he  circulated  about  the  room,  a  little  while 
afterward,  repeating  the  story  to  various  listeners. 

He  thought  Matthew  Arnold  the  greatest  living  Eng- 
lishman. He  spoke  with  great  respect  of  Carlyle.  He 
said:  "Emerson  was  an  imitator  of  Carlyle,  and  got  his 
thoughts  from  him. ' '  I  could  not  stand  that.  It  seemed  to 
me  that  he  had  probably  never  read  a  page  of  Emerson  in 
his  life,  and  had  got  his  notion  from  some  writer  for  a  maga- 
zine, before  either  of  these  great  men  was  well  known.  I 
took  the  liberty  of  saying,  with  some  emphasis,  "Emerson 
was  a  far  prof ounder  and  saner  intellect  than  Carlyle. ' '  To 
which  he  said,  "Why,  what  do  you  say!"  I  repeated  what 
I  had  said,  and  he  received  the  statement  with  great  polite- 
ness, but,  of  course,  without  assent. 

During  this  summer  I  paid  a  visit  to  Moyle's  Court,  near 
Southampton,  formerly  owned  by  Lady  Alice  Lisle,  whose 
daughter  married  Leonard  Hoar,  President  of  Harvard  Col- 
lege. Leonard  Hoar  was  the  brother  of  my  ancestor,  John 
Hoar  of  Concord,  and  the  son  of  Charles  Hoar,  Sheriff  of 
Gloucester.  There  is  a  statement  in  an  old  account  of  some 
Puritan  worthies  that  I  have  seen,  to  the  effect  that  John 


Hoar  and  Leonard  married  sisters.  If  that  be  true,  Jolin 
Hoar's  wife,  Alice,  was  a  daughter  and  namesake  of  Lady 
Alice  Lisle.  Although  I  should  like  to  believe  it,  I  am  afraid 
that  the  claim  cannot  be  made  good.  Lady  Alice  Lisle  was 
a  lady  of  large  wealth  and  good  lineage.  Her  husband  was 
John  Lord  Lisle,  who  was  Lord  Justice  under  Cromwell,  and 
one  of  the  Judges  in  the  trial  of  Charles  I.  He  drew  the  in- 
dictment and  sentence  of  the  King,  and  sat  next  to  Brad- 
shaw  at  the  trial,  and  directed  and  prompted  him  in  difficult 
matters.  He  was  murdered  one  Sunday  morning  on  his  way 
to  church  when  in  exile  at  Lausanne,  Switzerland,  on  the 
Lake  of  Geneva,  by  three  ruffians,  said  to  be  sent  for  that 
purpose  by  Queen  Henrietta.  Lady  Alice  Lisle  was  a  victim 
of  the  brutality  of  Jeffries.  After  Monmouth's  rebellion  and 
defeat,  she  gave  shelter  and  food  to  two  fugitives  from  Mon- 
mouth's army.  The  report  of  her  trial  is  in  Howell.  There 
was  no  proof  that  she  knew  that  they  were  fugitives  from 
Monmouth's  army,  although  she  supposed  one  of  them  was 
a  Dissenting  minister.  There  had  been  no  conviction  of  the 
principals,  which  the  English  law  required  before  an  acces- 
sory after  the  fact  could  be  found  guilty.  She  suggested 
this  point  at  the  trial,  but  it  was  overruled  by  Jeffries.  He 
conducted  the  case  with  infinite  brutality.  She  was  a  kindly 
old  lady,  of  more  than  seventy  years.  She  slept  during 
part  of  the  trial,  probably  being  fatigued  by  the  journey, 
in  which  she  had  been  carried  on  horseback  from  Moyle's 
Court  to  Winchester,  and  the  sleepless  nights  which  would 
naturally  have  followed.  She  was  sentenced  to  be  burned 
at  the  stake.  But  the  sentence  was  commuted  to  beheading, 
at  the  intercession  of  the  gentry  of  the  neighborhood.  She 
had  disapproved  of  the  execution  of  the  King ;  said  she  had 
always  prayed  for  him,  and  had  a  son  in  the  King's  army. 
Macaulay's  account  of  the  story  is  familiar  to  all  readers 
of  English  history. 

I  was  received  at  the  old  house  with  great  kindness  by 
Mrs.  Fane,  wife  of  the  present  proprietor.  It  is  a  beauti- 
ful old  house  with  carved  oak  partitions,  with  a  dining  room 
rising  to  the  roof.  Lady  Lisle 's  chamber  and  the  place 
where  the  two  fugitives  were  concealed  are  still  shown. 


Mrs.  Fane  had  gathered  some  local  traditions  which  are  not 
found  in  print.  One  old  lady,  who  had  heen  well  known  to 
persons  now  living,  had  received  some  of  them  from  her 
grandmother,  who  was  cotemporary  with  Lady  Alice. 

The  lady  was  very  popular  with  her  tenants  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. The  messenger  who  came  from  Winchester  to 
arrest  her  took  her  on  horseback  behind  him,  according  to 
the  custom  of  the  time.  The  horse  cast  a  shoe.  The  mes- 
senger was  for  pressing  on  without  regard  to  the  suffering 
of  the  animal.  She  insisted  that  he  should  stop  and  have 
the  horse  shod.  The  man  roughly  refused.  She  said:  "I 
have  made  no  outcry,  on  my  own  account.  But  everybody 
here  loves  me.  If  you  do  not  stop,  I  shall  cry  out.  You 
will  never  get  away  with  me  alive. ' '  The  fellow  was  fright- 
ened and  consented  to  stop  at  a  smithy.  When  the  smith 
had  finished  his  work.  Lady  Lisle  said:  ''I  will  be  back 
this  way  in  two  or  three  days,  and  I  will  pay  you. ' '  To  this 
the  messenger  said:  "Yes,  you  will  be  back  this  way  in  two 
or  three  days,  but  without  your  head." 

The  headless  body  was  brought  back  from  Winchester 
after  the  trial.  The  next  day,  when  the  household  were  at 
dinner,  a  man  came  to  the  outside  and  thrust  into  the  dining 
room  window  a  basket,  containing  her  head.  This  was  said 
to  be  for  "greater  indignity." 

Lady  Lisle  had  known  Hicks,  one  of  the  persons  whom 
she  relieved,  before.  When  the  court  was  sitting  for  the 
trial  of  Charles  I.,  she  went  up  to  London  to  expostulate 
with  her  husband.  She  arrived  at  his  lodgings  just  as  he 
was  setting  out  in  a  procession,  with  some  state,  for  West- 
minister Hall,  where  the  trial  was  held.  As  she  approached 
to  speak  to  him,  he  did  not  recognize  her  in  the  soiled  dress 
in  which  she  had  travelled,  and  motioned  her  away  rather 
roughly.  It  was  said  that  she  was  overcome  by  the  press 
in  the  crowd  and  fell  to  the  ground.  Hicks,  who  was  a 
Dissenting  minister,  raised  her  up  and  took  her  to  his  own 
lodging  near  by  in  the  Strand.  She  said  to  him  that  she 
could  not  recompense  him  there,  but  if  he  would  come  to 
Hampshire,  or  to  the  Isle  of  Wight,  where  she  had  prop- 
erty, she  would  be  glad  to  repay  him. 


Saturday,  October  22,  1892,  with  Mrs.  Hoar  and  her  sis- 
ter, Mrs.  Rice,  I  went  from  Soutliampton  to  Ringwood,  about 
twenty  miles,  and  thence  drove  to  Ellingham  Oburcli,  about 
two  miles  and  a  half.  The  church  is  a  small  but  very  beau- 
tiful structure  of  stone,  with  a  small  wooden  belfry.  The 
tomb  of  Lady  Alice  Lisle  is  a  heavy,  flat  slab  of  gray  stone, 
raised  about  two  or  three  feet  from  the  ground,  bearing  the 
following  inscription: 

Here  lies  Dame  Alicia  Lisle 

and  her  daughter  Ann  Harield 

who  dyed  the  17th  of  Feb.  1703-4 

Alicia  Lisle  dyed  the 

second  of  Sept.  1685. 

It  is  close  to  the  wall  of  the  church,  on  the  right  of  the 
porch.  In  the  church  is  seen  the  old  Lisle  pew  of  carved 
oak,  now  the  pew  of  the  Earl  of  Normanton.  Opposite  the 
pew  is  the  pulpit,  also  of  carved  black  oak,  apparently  an- 
cient. The  church  contains  a  tablet  to  the  memory  of  the 
former  owner  of  Moyle's  Court,  who  died  in  1622. 

Moyle  's  Court  is  about  a  mile  and  a  half  from  Ellingham 
Church.  The  drive  is  along  a  beautiful  lane  shaded  by 
trees  whose  branches  meet  from  the  two  sides,  through  a 
beautiful  and  fertile  country,  adorned  by  herds  of  fine  cattle. 
Moyle's  Court  is  a  large  two-story  building,  consisting  of 
two  square  wings  connected  by  the  main  building.  The 
wings  project  from  the  main  building  in  front,  but  the  whole 
forms  a  continuous  line  in  the  rear.  As  you  approach  it, 
you  pass  numerous  heavy,  brick  outbuildings,  including  sev- 
eral farmhouses,  one  of  which  is  quite  large,  and  apparently 
of  great  antiquity.  We  were  received  by  Mrs.  Fane  with 
the  greatest  courtesy.  She  said  that  the  landed  estate  con- 
nected with  Moyle's  Court  is  very  large,  now  or  recently 
yielding  the  Earl  of  Normanton  seven  thousand  pounds  a 

The  present  occupant  of  Moyle's  Court,  Frederick  Fane, 
Esq.,  came  there  about  twenty-one  years  before.  The  house 
was  then  much  dilapidated,  but  he  has  restored  it  in  a  style 
in  keeping  with  the  ancient  architecture.     The  principal 


room  is  a  dining  hall,  rising  from  the  ground  some  twenty- 
five  feet  in  height,  with  a  gallery  at  one  end,  on  a  level  with 
the  second  story.  The  walls  of  this  room  are  of  beautiful, 
carved  oak,  the  front  of  the  gallery  being  ancient,  and  as 
it  existed  in  the  time  of  Lady  Alice  Lisle.  The  staircase, 
also  of  fine,  carved  oak,  is  of  equal  antiquity.  The  carved 
oak  in  the  passages  and  some  of  the  other  rooms  has  been 
restored  by  Mr.  Fane  from  material  found  in  the  attic. 
There  is  also  a  curious  old  kitchen,  with  a  large  fireplace, 
with  a  closet  in  the  chimney  where  it  is  said  one  of  the  per- 
sons succored  by  Lady  Alice  Lisle  was  found  hidden.  In 
the  cellar  is  a  curiously  carved  head  on  a  stone  beam,  which 
seemed  as  if  it  might  formerly  have  supported  a  mantel- 
piece or  shelf.  It  is  said  that  this  portion  of  the  cellar  was 
once  a  chapel. 

Some  of  the  chambers  have  been  named  by  Mr.  Fane  from 
persons  connected  with  the  tragedy— Dame  Alicia,  Mon- 
mouth, Nelthrop,  Hicks,  Tryphena— these  names  being  in- 
scribed on  the  doors.  The  room  is  shown  where  Lady  Lisle 
is  said  to  have  been  seized. 

The  old  tombstone  over  the  grave  of  Leonard  Hoar  and 
his  wife,  at  the  Quincy  burial-ground,  in  Massachusetts,  is 
almost  an  exact  copy  of  that  over  Lady  Alice  Lisle,  at  EUer- 
ton  near  Moyle's  Court.  They  were  doubtless  selected  by 
the  same  taste.  Mrs.  Leonard  Hoar,  whose  maiden  name 
was  Bridget  Lisle,  was  connected  quite  intimately  with 
three  of  the  great  tragedies  in  the  history  of  English  liberty. 
Her  father,  as  has  been  said,  was  murdered  at  Lausanne. 
Her  mother  was  murdered  under  the  form  of  the  mock 
judgment  of  Jeffries,  at  Winchester.  Her  niece  mar- 
ried Lord  Henry  Eussell,  son  of  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  and 
brother  of  Lord  William  Russell,  the  story  of  whose  tragic 
death  is  familiar  to  every  one  who  reads  the  noble  history 
of  the  struggle  between  liberty  and  tyranny  which  ended 
with  the  Eevolution  of  1688. 

Bridget  Hoar  married  again  after  the  death  of  her  hus- 
band, President  Hoar.  Her  second  husband  was  a  Mr. 
Usher,  who  seems  to  have  been  insane.  She  lived  with  him 
very  unhappily,  then  separated  from  him  and  went  back  to 



England,  staying  there  until  lie  died.  She  then  came  back 
to  Boston  and  died,  May  25,  1723.  At  her  own  request  she 
was  buried  at  the  side  of  her  first  husband.  A  great  con- 
course of  the  clergy  and  the  principal  citizens,  including  the 
Governor,  attended  her  funeral. 

It  was  my  good  fortune  to  be  instrumental,  after  this  visit, 
in  correcting  an  evil  which  had  caused  great  annoyance  to 
our  representatives  abroad  for  a  good  many  years. 

The  Americans  have  never  maintained  their  representa- 
tives abroad  with  a  dignity  becoming  a  great  power  like  the 
United  States.  The  American  Minister  is  compelled  by  our 
rules  to  wear  a  dress  which  exposes  him  to  be  mistaken  for 
a  waiter  at  any  festive  gathering.  Distinctions  of  rank  are 
well  established  in  the  diplomatic  customs  of  civilized  na- 
tions. It  is  well  understood  that  whether  a  representative 
of  a  country  shall  be  an  Ambassador,  a  Minister  Plenipoten- 
tiary, a  Minister  Eesident,  or  a  Charge  d'affaires,  depends 
on  the  sense  of  its  rank  among  the  nations  of  the  world  of 
the  country  that  sends  him.  For  many  years  all  argument 
was  lost  on  Congress.  The  United  States  representative 
must  not  adopt  the  customs  as  to  dress  of  the  effete  mon- 
archies of  the  old  world.  To  send  an  Ambassador  instead 
of  a  Minister  was  to  show  a  most  undemocratic  deference  to 
titles,  abhorrent  to  every  good  republican.  There  had  been 
several  attempts  to  make  a  change  in  this  matter,  always  un- 
successful, until  I  went  abroad  in  1892. 

When  I  was  in  London  in  that  year,  I  saw  a  great  deal  of 
Mr.  Lincoln.  He  told  me  how  vexatious  he  found  his  posi- 
tion. When  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  received  the 
diplomatic  representatives  of  other  countries  at  the  Foreign 
Office,  Ambassadors  were  treated  as  belonging  to  one  rank, 
or  class,  and  the  Ministers  as  to  a  lower  one.  The  members 
of  each  class  were  received  in  the  order  of  their  seniority. 
We  change  our  Ministers  with  every  Administration.  So 
the  Minister  of  the  United  States  is  likely  to  be  among  the 
juniors.  He  might  have  to  wait  all  day,  while  the  represen- 
tatives of  insignificant  little  States  were  received  one  after 
another.  If,  before  the  day  ended,  his  turn  came,  some 
Ambassador  would  arrive,  who  would  get  there,  perhaps. 


five  minutes  before  it  was  time  for  Mr.  Lincoln  to  go  in, 
he  had  precedence  at  once.  So  the  representative  of  the 
most  powerful  country  on  earth  might  have  to  lose  the  whole 
day,  only  to  repeat  the  same  experience  on  the  next. 

An  arrangement  was  made  which  partly  cured  the  trouble 
by  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  receiving  Mr.  Lincoln, 
on  special  application,  informally,  at  his  residence,  on  some 
other  day.  But  that  was  frequently  very  inconvenient. 
And,  besides,  it  was  not  always  desirable  to  make  a  special 
application  for  an  audience,  which  would  indicate  to  the 
English  Government  that  we  attached  great  importance  to 
the  request  he  might  have  to  make,  so  that  conditions  of  im- 
portance would  be  likely  to  be  attached  to  it  by  them.  It 
was  quite  desirable,  sometimes,  to  mention  a  subject  inci- 
dentally and  by  the  way,  rather  than  to  make  it  matter  of 
a  special  appointment. 

When  I  got  to  Paris,  I  found  Mr.  Coolidge  complaining 
of  the  same  difficulty.  I  told  our  two  Ministers  that  when 
I  got  home  I  would  try  to  devise  a  remedy.  Accordingly 
I  proposed  and  moved  as  an  amendment  to  the  Consular  and 
Diplomatic  Appropriation  Bill,  the  following  clause: 

"Whenever  the  President  shall  be  advised  that  any  for- 
eign government  is  represented,  or  is  about  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  United  States,  by  an  Ambassador,  Envoy 
Extraordinary,  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  Minister  Resident, 
Special  Envoy,  or  Charge  d'affaires,  he  is  authorized,  in  his 
discretion,  to  direct  that  the  representative  of  the  United 
States  to  such  government  shall  bear  the  same  designation. 
This  provision  shall  in  no  wise  affect  the  duties,  powers,  or 
salary  of  such  representative." 

This  had  the  hearty  approval  of  Senators  Allison  and 
Hale,  the  leading  members  of  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions, and  was  reported  favorably  by  that  Committee. 

Senator  Vest  was  absent  when  the  matter  came  up,  and  it 
passed  without  opposition.  Mr.  Vest  announced,  the  next 
day,  that  he  had  intended  to  oppose  it.  I  am  afraid  if  he 
had,  he  would  have  succeeded  in  defeating  it. 


When  it  went  to  the  House,  the  Committee  on  Appropria- 
tions consented  to  retain  the  amendment,  and  it  was  favored 
by  Mr.  Hitt  of  Illinois,  who  had,  himself,  represented  the 
country  abroad  and  knew  all  about  such  matters.  There 
was  a  little  opposition  in  the  House.  But  it  was  quieted 
without  great  difficulty.  Vice-President  Morton,  who  had, 
himself,  represented  the  country  at  Paris,  went  personally 
to  the  House  and  used  his  great  influence  in  favor  of  the 
proposition.  Mr.  Blount  of  Georgia,  a  very  influential 
Democrat,  threatened  to  make  a  strong  opposition.  But  the 
gentlemen  who  favored  it  said  to  him:  "Now  you  are  going 
out  of  the  House,  but  your  countrymen  will  not  long  let  you 
stay  in  retirement.  You  will  be  summoned  to  important 
public  service  somewhere.  It  is  quite  likely  that  your  polit- 
ical friends  will  call  you  to  one  of  these  important  diplo- 
matic places,  where  you  will  be  in  danger  of  suffering  the 
inconvenience  yourself,  if  the  present  system  continue." 
Mr.  Blount  was  pacified.  And  the  measure  which  I  think 
would  have  been  beaten  by  a  pugnacious  opposition  in  either 
House  of  Congress,  got  through. 

Among  the  most  impressive  recollections  of  my  life  is  the 
funeral  of  Tennyson  in  Westminister  Abbey.  I  got  a  seat 
at  the  request  of  the  American  Minister  by  the  favor  of 
Archdeacon  Farrar,  who  had  charge  of  the  arrangements. 
It  was  a  most  impressive  scene.  I  had  a  seat  near  the  grave, 
which  was  in  the  Poets '  Corner,  of  which  the  pavement  had 
been  opened.  The  wonderful  music;  the  stately  procession 
which  followed  the  coffin  through  the  historic  West  en- 
trance, in  the  most  venerable  building  in  the  world,  to  lay 
the  poet  to  sleep  his  last  sleep  with  England's  illustrious 
dead  of  more  than  a  thousand  years. 

In  those  precincts  where  the  mighty  rest, 

With  rows  of  statesmen  and  with  walks  of  Kings, 

to  which 

Ne'er  since  their  foundation  came  a  nobler  guest, 

was   unspeakably   touching   and   impressive.     The    solemn 


burial  service  was  conducted  by  the  aged  Dean,  doomed,  not 
long  after,  to  follow  tbe  beloved  poet  to  his  own  final  rest- 
ing-place near  by. 

The  choir  sang  two  anthems,  both  by  Tennyson— "Cross- 
ing the  Bar"  and  "Silent  Voices"— the  music  of  the  latter 
by  Lady  Tennyson. 

The  grave  lay  next  to  Eobert  Brownings',  hard  by  the 
monument  to  Chaucer.  I  looked  into  it  and  saw  the  oaken 
coffin  with  the  coronet  on  the  lid. 

The  pall-bearers  were  the  Duke  of  Argyle,  Lord  Dufferin, 
Lord  Selbourne,  Lord  Eosebery,  Mr.  Jowett,  Mr.  Lecky, 
Mr.  Froude,  Lord  Salisbury,  Dr.  Butler,  Head  of  Trinity, 
Cambridge,  Sir  James  Paget,  Lord  Kelvin  and  the  United 
States  Minister.  The  place  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  who  had  gone 
home  on  leave  of  absence,  was  taken  by  Mr.  Henry  White. 

After  depositing  the  body,  the  bearers  passed  the  seat 
where  I  sat,  one  by  one,  pressing  through  between  two  rows  of 
seats,  so  that  their  garments  touched  mine  as  they  went  by. 

The  day  was  cloudy  and  mournful,  blending  an  unusual 
gloom  with  the  dim  religious  light  of  the  Abbey.  But  just 
as  the  body  was  let  down  into  the  earth,  the  sun  came  out 
for  a  moment  from  the  clouds,  cheering  and  lightening  up 
the  nave  and  aisles  and  transepts  of  the  mighty  building. 
As  the  light  struck  the  faces  of  the  statues  and  the  busts,  it 
seemed  for  a  moment  that  the  countenances  changed  and 
stirred  with  a  momentary  life,  as  if  to  give  a  welcome  to 
the  guest  who  had  come  to  break  upon  their  long  repose. 
Of  course  it  was  but  an  idle  imagination,  begot,  perhaps,  of 
the  profound  excitement  which  such  a  scene,  to  the  like  of 
which  I  was  so  utterly  unaccustomed,  made  upon  me.  But 
as  I  think  of  it  now,  I  can  hardly  resist  the  belief  that  it 
was  real. 

It  was  my  good  fortune  during  this  journey  to  become  the 
purchaser  of  Wordsworth's  Bible.  It  was  presented  to  him 
by  Frederick  William  Taber,  the  famous  writer  of  hymns. 
While  it  is  absolutely  clean,  it  bears  the  mark  of  much  use. 
It  was  undoubtedly  the  Bible  of  Wordsworth's  old  age.  On 
my  next  visit  to  England  I  told  John  Morley  about  it.  He 
said,  if  it  had  been  known,  I  never  should  have  been  allowed 


to  take  it  out  of  England.    It  bears  the  following  inscription 
in  Taber's  handwriting: 

William  Wordsworth 
From  Frederick  Wm  Taber, 

In"  atfectionate  acknowledgment  of  his  many  kindnesses, 
and  of  the  pleasure  and  advantage  of  his  friendship. 
Ambleside.    New  Year's  Eve.     1842.    A.  D. 
Be  stedfast  in  thy  Covenant,  and  be  conversant 
therein,  and  wax  old  in  thy  work. 

Ecclesiasticus  XI.  20. 




In  1896  I  found  myself  again  utterly  broken  down  in 
health  and  strength.  I  had,  the  November  before,  a  slight 
paralysis  in  the  face,  which  affected  the  muscles  of  the  lower 
lid  of  one  of  my  eyes,  causing  a  constant  irritation  in  the 
organ  itself.  After  a  time  this  caused  a  distortion  of  the 
lips,  which  I  concealed  somewhat  by  a  moustache.  But  it 
operated,  for  a  little  while,  as  an  effective  disguise.  When 
I  came  home  during  the  winter,  an  old  conductor  on  the 
Boston  &  Albany  Eailroad,  whom  I  had  known  quite  well, 
when  he  took  my  ticket  looked  at  me  with  some  earnestness 
and  said,  "Are  you  not  related  to  Senator  Hoar?"  To 
which  I  answered,  "I  am  a  connection  of  his  wife,  by  mar- 
riage. ' ' 

I  found  I  must  get  rid  of  the  work  at  home,  if  I  were  to 
get  back  my  capacity  for  work  at  all.  So  I  sailed  for  South- 
ampton before  the  session  of  Congress  ended.  It  was  the 
only  time  I  had  absented  myself  from  my  duties  in  Con- 
gress, except  for  an  urgent  public  reason,  for  twenty-seven 
years  and  more. 

I  saw  a  good  many  interesting  English  people.  It  is  not 
worth  while  to  give  the  details  of  dinners  and  lunches  and 
social  life,  unless  something  of  peculiar  and  general  interest 
occur.  Almost  every  American  who  can  afford  it  goes 
abroad  now.  Our  English  kinsmen  are  full  of  hospitality. 
They  have  got  over  their  old  coldness  with  which  they  were 
apt  to  receive  their  American  cousins,  although  they  were 
always  the  most  delightfully  hospitable  race  on  earth  when 
you  had  once  got  within  the  shield  of  their  reserve. 

I  remember  especially,  however,  a  very  pleasant  Sunday 
spent  on  the  Thames,  at  the  delightful  home  of  William 



Grrenfell,  Esq.,  whicli  I  mention  because,  by  a  fortunate  acci- 
dent, the  visit  had  some  very  interesting  consequences. 
There  I  met  Sir  John  Lubbock,  now  Baron  Avebury,  famous 
for  his  writings  on  financial  questions  and  on  Natural  His- 
torj'',  especially  for  his  observations  of  the  habits  of  ants. 
He  told  me,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  that  he  had  personally 
watched  the  conduct  and  behavior  of  more  than  fifteen  thou- 
sand individual  ants.  There  was  a  company  of  agreeable 
English  ladies  and  gentlemen.  They  played  games  in  the 
evening  after  dinner,  as  you  might  expect  of  a  company  of 
American  boys  and  girls  of  sixteen  or  eighteen  years  old. 

Mr.  Grenfell  was  a  famous  sportsman.  His  house  was 
filled  with  the  trophies  of  his  skill  in  hunting.  I  was  told 
that  he  had  crossed  the  Channel  in  a  row-boat. 

Sir  John  Lubbock  invited  me  to  breakfast  with  him  a  few 
days  afterward  in  St.  James  Square.  There  I  met  a  large 
number  of  scientific  men,  among  them  the  President  of  the 
(reographical  Society,  and  the  Presidents  or  Heads  of  sev- 
eral other  of  the  important  British  Societies.  I  was  pre- 
sented to  all  these  gentlemen.  But  I  found  I  could  not  eas- 
ily understand  the  names,  when  they  were  presented.  Eng- 
lishmen usually,  even  when  they  speak  the  language  exactly 
as  we  do,  have  a  peculiar  pronunciation  of  names,  which 
makes  it  very  hard  for  an  American  ear  to  catch  them.  I 
could  not  very  well  say,  "What  name  did  you  say?"  or  ask 
the  host  to  repeat  himself.  So  I  was  obliged  to  spend  the 
hour  in  ignorance  of  the  special  dignity  of  most  of  the  illus- 
trious persons  whom  I  met. 

Just  behind  my  chair  hung  a  full-length  portrait  of  Ad- 
miral Boscawen,  a  famous  naval  officer  connected  with  our 
early  history.  For  him  was  named  the  town  of  Boscawen 
in  New  Hampshire,  where  Daniel  Webster  practised  law. 
The  house  where  we  were  had  been  his.  I  think  he  was  in 
some  way  akin  to  the  host. 

I  sailed  for  home  on  Wednesday.  The  Friday  night  be- 
fore, I  dined  with  Moreton  Frewen,  Esq.,  an  accomplished 
English  gentleman,  well  known  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 
Mr.  Frewen  had  been  very  kind  and  hospitable  to  me,  as  he 
had  been  to  many  Americans.     He  deserves  the  gratitude 


of  both  nations  for  what  he  has  done  to  promote  good  feeling 
between  the  two  countries  by  his  courtesy  to  Americans  of 
all  parties  and  ways  of  thinking.  He  has  helped  make  the 
leading  men  of  both  countries  know  each  other.  Prom  that 
knowledge  has  commonly  followed  a  hearty  liking  for  each 

I  mention  this  dinner,  as  I  did  the  visit  to  Mr.  Grenfell, 
because  of  its  connection  with  a  very  interesting  transaction. 
The  guests  at  the  dinner  were  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote,  after- 
ward Lord  Pauncefote,  the  British  Ambassador  to  the 
United  States,  who  was  then  at  home  on  a  brief  visit;  Sir 
Seymour  Blaine,  an  old  military  officer  who  had  won,  as  I 
was  told,  great  distinction  in  the  East,  and  two  Spanish 

The  soldier  told  several  very  interesting  stories  of  his 
military  life,  and  of  what  happened  to  him  in  his  early 

Of  these  I  remember  two.  He  said  that  when  he  was  a 
young  officer,  scarcely  more  than  a  boy,  he  was  invited  by 
the  Duke  of  Wellington,  with  other  officers,  to  a  great  ball 
at  Apsley  House.  Late  in  the  evening,  after  the  guests  had 
left  the  supper  room,  and  it  was  pretty  well  deserted,  he 
felt  a  desire  for  another  glass  of  wine.  There  was  nobody 
in  the  supper  room.  He  was  just  pouring  out  a  glass  of 
champagne  for  himself,  when  he  heard  a  voice  behind  him. 
"Youngster,  what  are  you  doing?"  He  turned  round.  It 
was  the  Duke.  He  said,  "I  am  getting  a  glass  of  wine." 
To  this  the  Duke  replied,  "You  ought  to  be  up-stairs  danc- 
ing. There  are  but  two  things.  Sir,  for  a  boy  like  you  to  be 
doing.  One  is  fighting;  the  other  dancing  with  the  girls. 
As  for  me  I  'm  going  to  bed. ' '  Thereupon  the  Duke  passed 
round  the  table;  touched  a  spring  which  opened  a  secret 
door,  in  what  was  apparently  a  set  of  book-shelves,  and  dis- 

Sir  Seymour  Blaine  told  another  story  which,  I  dare  say, 
is  well  known.  But  I  have  never  seen  it  in  print.  He  said 
that  just  before  the  Battle  of  Talavera  when  the  Duke,  then 
Sir  Arthur  Wellesley,  was  in  command  in  Spain,  the  Eng- 
lish and  French  armies  had  been  marching  for  many  days 


on  parallel  lines,  neither  quite  liking  to  attack  the  other,  and 
neither  having  got  the  advantage  in  position  which  they 
were  seeking.  At  last,  one  day,  when  everybody  was  pretty 
weary  with  the  fatigues  of  the  march,  the  Duke  summoned 
some  of  his  leading  officers  together  and  said  to  them:  "You 
see  that  clump  of  trees  (pointing  to  one  a  good  distance 
away,  but  in  sight  from  where  they  stood)  —when  the  head 
of  the  French  column  reaches  that  clump  of  trees,  attack. 
As  for  me  I  'm  going  to  sleep  under  this  bush. ' '  Thereupon 
the  great  soldier  lay  down,  all  his  arrangements  being  made, 
and  everything  being  in  readiness,  and  took  his  nap  while 
the  great  battle  of  Talavera— on  which  the  fate  of  Spain  and 
perhaps  the  fate  of  Europe  depended— was  begun.  This 
adds  another  instance  to  the  list  of  the  occasions  to  which 
Mr.  Everett  refers  when  he  speaks  of  Webster's  sleeping 
soundly  the  night  before  his  great  reply  to  Hayne. 

"So  the  great  Conde  slept  on  the  eve  of  the  battle  of 
Rocroi;  so  Alexander  slept  on  the  eve  of  the  battle  of  Ar- 
bela;  and  so  they  awoke  to  deeds  of  immortal  fame!" 

But  this  dinner  of  Mr.  Prewen's  had  a  very  interesting 
consequence.  As  I  took  leave  of  him  at  his  door  about 
eleven  o'clock,  he  asked  me  if  there  were  anything  more 
he  could  do  for  me.  I  said,  "No,  unless  you  happen  to 
know  the  Lord  Bishop  of  London.  I  have  a  great  longing 
to  see  the  Bradford  Manuscript  before  I  go  home.  It  is  in 
the  Bishop's  Library.  I  went  to  Fulham  the  other  day, 
but  found  the  Bishop  was  gone.  I  had  supposed  the  Li- 
brary was  a  half -public  one.  I  asked  the  servant  who  came 
to  the  door  for  the  librarian.  He  told  me  there  was  no  such 
officer,  and  that  it  was  treated  in  all  respects  as  a  private 
library.  But  I  should  be  very  glad  if  I  could  get  an  oppor- 
tunity to  see  it."  Mr.  Frewen  answered,  "I  do  not  myself 
know  the  Bishop.  But  Mr.  Grenfell,  at  whose  house  you 
spent  Sunday,  a  little  while  ago,  is  his  nephew  by  marriage. 
He  is  in  Scotland.  But  if  I  can  reach  him,  I  will  procure  for 
you  a  letter  to  his  uncle. ' '  That  was  Friday.  Sunday  morn- 
ing there  came  a  note  from  Mr.  Grenfell  to  the  Bishop.    I  en- 


closed  it  to  his  Lordship  in  one  from  myself,  in  which  I  said 
that  if  it  were  agreeable  to  him,  I  would  call  at  Fulham 
the  next  Tuesday,  at  an  hour  which  I  fixed.  I  got  a  cour- 
teous reply  from  the  Bishop,  in  which  he  said  that  he  would 
be  glad  to  show  me  the ' '  log  of  the  Mayflower, "  as  he  called  it. 
I  kept  the  appointment,  and  found  the  Bishop  with  the  book 
in  his  hand.  He  received  me  very  courteously,  and  showed 
me  a  little  of  the  palace.  He  said  that  there  had  been  a 
Bishop's  palace  on  that  spot  for  more  than  a  thousand  years. 

I  took  the  precious  manuscript  in  my  hands,  and  examined 
it  with  an  almost  religious  reverence.  I  had  delivered  the 
address  at  Plymouth,  the  twenty-first  of  December,  1895,  on 
the  occasion  of  the  two  hundred  and  seventy-fifth  anniver- 
sary of  the  landing  of  the  Pilgrims  upon  the  rock.  In  pre- 
paring for  that  duty  I  read  carefully,  with  renewed  enthu- 
siasm and  delight,  the  noble  and  touching  story  as  told  by 
Governor  Bradford.  I  declared  then  that  this  precious  his- 
tory ought  to  be  in  no  other  custody  than  that  of  their 

There  have  been  several  attempts  to  procure  the  return 
of  the  manuscript  to  this  country.  Mr.  Winthrop,  in  1860, 
through  the  venerable  John  Sinclair,  Archdeacon,  urged  the 
Bishop  of  London  to  give  it  up,  and  proposed  that  the  Prince 
of  Wales,  then  just  coming  to  this  country,  should  take  it 
across  the  Atlantic  and  present  it  to  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts. The  Attorney-Greneral,  Sir  Fitzroy  Kelley,  ap- 
proved the  plan,  and  said  it  would  be  an  exceptional  act  of 
grace,  a  most  interesting  action,  and  that  he  heartily  wished 
the  success  of  the  application.  But  the  Bishop  refused. 
Again,  in  1869,  John  Lothrop  Motley,  then  Minister  to  Eng- 
land, who  had  a  great  and  deserved  influence  there,  repeated 
the  proposition,  at  the  suggestion  of  that  most  accomplished 
scholar,  Justin  Winsor.  But  his  appeal  had  the  same  fate. 
The  Bishop  gave  no  encouragement,  and  said,  as  had  been 
said  nine  years  before,  that  the  property  could  not  be  alien- 
ated without  an  Act  of  Parliament.  Mr.  Winsor  planned  to 
repeat  the  attempt  on  his  visit  to  England  in  1887.  When 
he  was  at  Fulham  the  Bishop  was  absent,  and  he  was  obliged 
to  go  home  without  seeing  him  in  person. 


In  1881,  at  the  time  of  the  death  of  President  Garfield, 
Benjamin  Scott,  Chamberlain  of  London,  proposed  again  in 
the  newspapers  that  the  restitution  should  be  made.  But 
nothing  came  of  it. 

When  I  went  abroad  I  determined  to  visit  the  locality  on 
the  borders  of  Lincolnshire  and  Yorkshire,  from  which 
Bradford  and  Brewster  and  Eobinson,  the  three  leaders  of 
the  Pilgrims,  came,  and  where  their  first  church  was  formed, 
and  the  places  in  Amsterdam  and  Leyden  where  the  emi- 
grants spent  thirteen  years.  But  I  longed  especially  to  see 
the  manuscript  of  Bradford  at  Pulham,  which  then  seemed 
to  me,  as  it  now  seems  to  me,  the  most  precious  manuscript 
on  earth,  unless  we  could  recover  one  of  the  four  gospels 
as  it  came  in  the  beginning  from  the  pen  of  the  Evangelist. 

The  desire  to  get  it  back  grew  and  grew  during  the  voyage 
across  the  Atlantic.  I  did  not  know  how  such  a  proposition 
would  be  received  in  England.  A  few  days  after  I  landed 
I  made  a  call  on  John  Morley.  I  asked  him  whether  he 
thought  the  thing  could  be  done.  He  inquired  carefully  into 
the  story,  took  down  from  his  shelf  the  excellent  though 
brief  life  of  Bradford  in  Leslie  Stephen's  "Biographical 
Dictionary, ' '  and  told  me  he  thought  the  book  ought  to  come 
back  to  us,  and  that  he  should  be  glad  to  do  anything  in  his 
power  to  help.  It  was  my  fortune,  a  week  or  two  after,  to 
sit  next  to  Mr.  Bayard  at  a  dinner  given  to  Mr.  Collins,  by 
the  American  consuls  in  Great  Britain.  I  took  occasion  to 
tell  him  the  story,  and  he  gave  me  the  assurance,  which  he 
afterward  so  abundantly  and  successfully  fulfilled,  of  his 
powerful  aid.  I  was  compelled,  by  the  health  of  one  of  the 
party  with  whom  I  was  travelling,  to  go  to  the  Continent 
almost  immediately,  and  was  disappointed  in  the  hope  of 
an  early  return  to  England. 

After  looking  at  the  volume  and  reading  the  records  on 
the  flyleaf,  I  said :  * '  My  Lord,  I  am  going  to  say  something 
which  you  may  think  rather  audacious.  I  think  this  book 
ought  to  go  back  to  Massachusetts.  Nobody  knows  how  it 
got  over  here.  Some  people  think  it  was  carried  off  by 
Governor  Hutchinson,  the  Tory  Governor;  other  people 
think  it  was  carried  off  by  British  soldiers  when  Boston  was 


evacuated;  but  in  either  case  the  property  would  not  have 
changed.  Or,  if  you  treat  it  as  booty,  in  which  last  case,  I 
suppose,  by  the  law  of  nations  ordinary  property  does 
change,  no  civilized  nation  in  modern  times  applies  that 
principle  to  the  property  of  libraries  and  institutions  of 
learning. ' ' 

The  Bishop  said:  "I  did  not  know  you  eared  anything 
about  it." 

"Why,"  said  I,  "if  there  were  in  existence  in  England 
a  history  of  King  Alfred's  reign  for  thirty  years,  written 
by  his  own  hand,  it  would  not  be  more  precious  in  the  eyes 
of  Englishmen  than  this  manuscript  is  to  us." 

"Well,"  said  he,  "I  think  myself  that  it  ought  to  go 
back,  and  if  it  depended  on  me  it  would  have  gone  back 
before  this.  But  many  of  the  Americans  who  have  been 
here  have  been  commercial  people,  and  did  not  seem  to  care 
much  about  it  except  as  a  curiosity.  I  suppose  I  ought  not 
to  give  it  up  on  my  own  authority.  It  belongs  to  me  in  my 
official  capacity,  and  not  as  private  or  personal  property.  I 
think  I  ought  to  consult  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 
And,  indeed,"  he  added,  "I  think  I  ought  to  speak  to  the 
Queen  about  it.  We  should  not  do  such  a  thing  behind  Her 
Majesty's  back." 

I  said:  "Very  well,  when  I  go  home  I  will  have  a  proper 
application  made  from  some  of  our  literary  societies,  and 
ask  you  to  give  it  consideration." 

I  saw  Mr.  Bayard  again  and  told  him  the  story.  He  was 
at  the  train  when  I  left  London  for  the  steamer  at  South- 
ampton. He  entered  with  great  interest  into  the  matter,  and 
told  me  again  he  would  do  anything  in  his  power  to  for- 
ward it. 

When  I  got  home  I  communicated  with  Secretary  Olney 
about  it,  who  took  a  kindly  interest  in  the  matter,  and  wrote 
to  Mr.  Bayard  that  the  Administration  desired  he  should  do 
everything  in  his  power  to  promote  the  application.  The 
matter  was  then  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Council  of 
the  American  Antiquarian  Society,  the  Massachusetts  His- 
torical Society,  the  Pilgrim  Society  of  Plymouth  and  the 
New  England  Society  of  New  York.     These   bodies   ap- 


pointed  committees  to  unite  in  the  application.  Governor 
Wolcott  was  also  consulted,  who  gave  his  hearty  approba- 
tion to  the  movement,  and  a  letter  was  despatched  through 
Mr.  Bayard. 

Meantime,  Bishop  Temple,  with  whom  I  had  my  conver- 
sation, had  himself  become  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
in  that  capacity  Primate  of  all  England.  His  successor, 
Eev.  Dr.  Creighton,  had  been  the  delegate  of  Emanuel, 
John  Harvard 's  College,  to  the  great  celebration  at  Harvard 
University  in  1886,  on  the  two  hundred  and  fiftieth  anniver- 
sary of  its  foundation.  He  had  received  the  degree  of  Doc- 
tor of  Laws  from  the  University,  had  been  a  guest  of  Presi- 
dent Eliot,  and  had  received  President  Eliot  as  his  guest  in 

The  full  story  of  the  recovery  of  the  manuscript,  in  which 
the  influence  of  Ambassador  Bayard  and  the  kindness  of 
Bishop  Temple,  afterward  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had 
so  large  a  part,  is  too  long  to  tell  here.  Before  the 
question  was  decided  Archbishop  Temple  consulted  Her 
Majesty,  Queen  Victoria,  who  took  a  deep  interest  in  the 
matter,  and  gave  the  plan  her  cordial  approval.  I  think, 
as  I  had  occasion  to  say  to  the  British  Ambassador  after- 
ward, that  the  restoration  of  this  priceless  manuscript  did 
more  to  cement  the  bonds  of  friendship  between  the  people 
of  the  two  countries  than  forty  Canal  Treaties.  In  settling 
Imperial  questions  both  nations  are  thinking,  properly  and 
naturally,  of  great  interests.  But  this  restoration  was  an  act 
of  purest  kindness.  The  American  people,  in  the  midst  of 
all  their  material  activities,  their  desire  for  wealth  and  em- 
pire, are  a  sentimental  people,  easily  and  deeply  stirred  by 
anything  that  touches  their  finer  feelings,  especially  any- 
thing that  relates  to  their  history. 

The  Bishop  was  authorized  to  return  the  manuscript  by 
a  decree  rendered  in  his  own  Court,  by  his  Chancellor.  The 
Chancellor  is  regarded  as  the  servant  of  the  Bishop,  and 
holds  office,  I  believe,  at  his  will.  But  so  does  the  King's 
Chancellor  at  the  King's  will.  I  suppose  the  arrangement 
by  which  the  Chancellor  determines  suits  in  which  his  supe- 
rior is  affected  may  be  explained  on  the  same  ground  as 


the  authority  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  to  determine  suits  in 
which  the  Crown  is  a  party. 

I  was  quite  curious  to  know  on  what  ground,  legal  or 
equitable,  the  decree  for  the  restoration  of  the  manuscript 
was  made.  I  wrote,  after  the  thing  was  over,  to  the  gentle- 
man who  had  acted  as  Mr.  Bayard's  counsel  in  the  case, 
asking  him  to  enlighten  me  on  this  subject.  I  got  a  very 
courteous  letter  from  him  in  reply,  in  which  he  said  he  was 
then  absent  from  home,  but  would  answer  my  inquiry  on  his 
return.  After  he  got  back,  however,  I  got  a  formal  and 
ceremonious  letter,  in  which  he  said  that,  having  been  em- 
ployed by  Mr.  Bayard  as  a  public  officer,  he  did  not  think 
he  was  at  liberty  to  answer  questions  asked  by  private  per- 
sons. As  the  petition  and  decree  had  gone  on  the  express 
ground  that  the  application  for  the  return  of  the  manuscript 
was  made  by  Mr.  Bayard,  not  in  his  official,  but  only  in  his 
private  capacity,  as  he  had  employed  counsel  at  my  request, 
and  I  had  been  responsible  for  their  fees,  I  was,  at  first, 
inclined  to  be  a  little  vexed  at  the  answer.  On  a  little  reflec- 
tion, however,  I  saw  that  it  was  not  best  to  be  too  curious  on 
the  subject;  that  where  there  was  a  will  there  was  a  way, 
and  probably  there  was  no  thought,  in  getting  the  decree,  on 
the  part  of  anybody  concerned,  to  be  too  strict  as  to  legali- 
ties. I  was  reminded,  however,  of  Silas  Wegg's  answer  to 
Mr.  Boffin,  when  he  read  aloud  to  him  and  his  wife  evening 
after  evening  "The  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire," which  Silas  had  spoken  of  at  first,  as  "The  Decline 
and  Fall  of  the  Russian  Empire."  Mr.  Boffin  noticed  the 
inconsistency,  and  asked  Mr.  Wegg  why  it  was  that  he  had 
called  it  ' '  The  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Russian  Empire ' '  in 
the  beginning.  To  which  Mr.  Wegg  replied  that  Mrs.  Boffin 
was  present,  and  that  it  would  not  be  proper  to  answer  that 
question  in  the  presence  of  a  lady. 

The  manuscript  was  brought  to  Massachusetts  by  Mr. 
Bayard,  on  his  return  to  the  United  States  at  the  end  of  his 
official  term.  It  was  received  by  the  Legislature  in  the 
presence  of  a  large  concourse  of  citizens,  to  whom  I  told 
the  story  of  the  recovery.  Mr.  Bayard  delivered  the  book 
to  the   Governor  and  the  Legislature  with  an  admirable 


speech,  and  Governor  Wolcott  expressed  the  tlianks  of  the 
State  in  an  eloquent  reply.  He  said  that  "the  story  of  the 
departure  of  this  precious  work  from  our  shores  may  never 
in  every  detail  be  revealed;  but  the  story  of  its  return 
will  be  read  of  all  men,  and  will  become  a  part  of 
the  history  of  the  Commonwealth.  There  are  places  and 
objects  so  intimately  associated  with  the  world's  greatest 
men  or  with  mighty  deeds  that  the  soul  of  him  who  gazes 
upon  them  is  lost  in  a  sense  of  reverent  awe,  as  it  listens 
to  the  voice  that  speaks  from  the  past,  in  words  like  those 
which  came  from  the  burning  bush,  'Put  off  thy  shoes  from 
off  thy  feet,  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest  is  holy 
ground. ' 

"The  story  here  told  is  one  of  triumphant  achievement, 
and  not  of  defeat.  As  the  official  representative  of  the  Com- 
monwealth, I  receive  it,  sir,  at  your  hands.  I  pledge  the 
faith  of  the  Commonwealth  that  for  all  time  it  shall  be 
guarded  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of  the  decree  under 
which  it  is  delivered  into  her  possession  as  one  of  her  chief- 
est  treasures.  I  express  the  thanks  of  the  Commonwealth 
for  the  priceless  gift,  and  I  venture  the  prophecy  that  for 
countless  years  to  come  and  to  untold  thousands  these  mute 
pages  shall  eloquently  speak  of  high  resolve,  great  suffering 
and  heroic  endurance  made  possible  by  an  absolute  faith  in 
the  over-ruling  providence  of  Almighty  God." 

The  Bishop  gave  the  Governor  of  Massachusetts  the  right 
to  deposit  the  manuscript  either  in  his  office  at  the  State 
House  or  with  the  Massachusetts  Historical  Society,  of 
which  Archbishop  Temple  and  Bishop  Creighton,  who  suc- 
ceeded Bishop  Temple  in  the  See  of  London,  were  both  Hon- 
orary members.  The  Governor,  under  my  advice,  depos- 
ited the  manuscript  in  the  State  House.  It  seemed  to  him 
and  to  me  that  the  Commonwealth,  which  is  made  up  of  the 
Colony  which  Bradford  founded,  and  of  which  he  was  Gov- 
ernor, blended  with  that  founded  by  the  Puritans  under 
Winthrop,  was  the  fitting  custodian  of  the  manuscript  which 
contains  the  original  record  of  the  life  in  Leyden  of  the 
founders  of  Plymouth,  of  the  voyage  across  the  sea,  and  of 
the  first  thirty  years  of  the  Colony  here.     It  is  kept  in  the 


State  Library,  open  at  the  spot  which  contains  the  Compact 
naade  on  board  the  Mayflower— the  first  written  Constitu- 
tion in  history.  Many  visitors  gaze  upon  it  every  year. 
Few  of  thena  look  upon  it  without  a  trembling  of  the  lip  and 
a  gathering  of  mist  in  the  eye.  I  am  told  that  it  is  not  un- 
common that  strong  men  weep  when  they  behold  it. 




I  WAS  compelled,  by  the  state  of  my  health,  to  be  absent 
from  the  country  in  the  campaign  which  preceded  the  Presi- 
dential election  of  1896,  except  for  the  last  week  or  two. 
But,  of  course,  I  took  a  very  deep  interest  indeed  in  the 
campaign.  Mr.  Bryan's  theories,  and  those  of  his  followers 
in  many  parts  of  the  country,  had  thoroughly  alarmed  the 
business  men  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  States.  But  in 
the  new  States  of  the  Northwest,  especially  in  those  that 
contained  silver  mines,  a  large  majority  of  the  people,  with- 
out distinction  of  party,  had  become  converts  to  the  doctrine 
that  the  United  States  should  coin  silver  at  a  ratio  compared 
to  gold  of  sixteen  to  one,  and  make  the  silver  so  coined  legal 
tender  in  the  payment  of  all  debts,  public  and  private.  The 
price  of  silver  as  compared  with  that  of  gold  had  been  con- 
stantly falling  for  several  years  past.  This  was  attributed 
to  the  effect  of  the  legislation  which  demonetized  silver  ex- 
cept to  a  limited  amount.  Several  eminent  Republicans, 
both  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  House,  as  well  as  many  others 
in  private  station,  left  the  Eepublican  Party  on  that  issue. 
Several  States  that  had  been  constantly  and  reliably  Eepub- 
lican became  Democratic  or  Populist,  under  the  same  influ- 

The  Democratic  Platform  of  1896  demanded  the  imme- 
diate restoration  of  the  free  coinage  of  gold  and  silver  at  the 
present  ratio  of  16  to  1,  without  waiting  for  the  consent  of 
any  other  nation.  That  doctrine  was  reaffirmed  and  en- 
dorsed in  the  Democratic  National  Platform  for  1900. 

There  were  two  theories  among  the  persons  who  desired 
to  maintain  the  gold  standard.  One  was  entertained  by  the 
persons  known  as  Gold  Monometallists.  They  insisted  that 
no  value  could  be  given  to  any  commodity  by  legislation. 



They  said  that  nothing  could  restore  silver  to  its  old  value 
as  compared  with  gold;  that  its  fall  was  owing  to  natural 
causes,  chiefly  to  the  increased  production.  They  insisted 
that  every  attempt  to  restore  silver  to  its  old  place  would 
be  futile,  and  that  the  promise  to  make  the  attempt,  under 
any  circumstances,  was  juggling  with  the  people,  from  which 
nothing  but  disaster  and  shame  would  follow.  They  justly 
maintained  that,  if  we  undertook  the  unlimited  coinage  of 
silver,  and  to  make  it  legal  tender,  under  the  inevitable  law 
long  ago  annoxmced  by  Gresham,  the  cheaper  metal,  silver, 
would  flow  into  this  country  where  it  would  have  a  larger 
value  for  the  purpose  of  paying  debts,  and  that  gold,  the 
more  precious  metal,  would  desert  the  country  where  there 
would  be  no  use  found  for  it  so  long  as  the  cheaper  metal 
would  perform  its  function  according  to  law.  From  this,  it 
was  claimed,  would  follow  the  making  of  silver  the  exclu- 
sive basis  of  all  commercial  transactions;  the  disturbance 
of  our  commercial  relations  with  other  countries,  and  the 
establishment  of  a  standard  of  value  which  would  fluctuate 
and  shrink  as  the  value  of  silver  fluctuated  and  shrank.  So 
that  no  man  who  contracted  a  debt  on  time  could  tell  what 
would  be  the  value  of  the  coin  he  would  be  compelled  to 
pay  when  his  debt  became  due,  and  all  business  on  earth 
would  become  gambling.  They,  therefore,  demanded  that 
the  Eepublican  Party  should  plant  itself  squarely  on  the 
gold  standard;  should  announce  its  purpose  to  make  gold 
the  exclusive  legal  tender  for  the  country,  and  appeal  to 
the  people  for  support  in  the  Presidential  election,  standing 
on  that  ground. 

To  them  their  antagonists  answered,  that  the  true  law 
was  stated  by  Alexander  Hamilton  in  his  famous  Eeport, 
accepted  by  all  his  contemporaries,  and  by  all  our  statesmen 
of  all  parties  down  to  1873  or  thereabouts,  and  recognised  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  That  doctrine  was, 
that  the  standard  of  value  must  necessarily  be  fixed  by  the 
agreement  of  all  commercial  nations.  No  nation  could, 
without  infinite  suffering  and  mischief,  undertake  to  set  it- 
self against  the  rule  adopted  by  the  rest  of  mankind.  It  was 
best,  if  the  nations  would  consent  to  it,  to  have  two  metals 


instead  of  one  made  legal  tender,  at  a  ratio  to  be  agreed 
upon  by  all  mankind,  establishing  what  was  called  Bimetal- 
lism. If  this  were  done,  the  Gresham  law  could  not  operate, 
because  there  would  be  no  occasion  for  the  cheaper  metal  to 
flow  into  any  one  country  by  reason  of  its  having  a  prefer- 
ence there  in  the  payment  of  debts ;  and  nothing  which  would 
cause  the  more  precious  metal  to  depart  from  any  country 
by  reason  of  its  being  at  a  disadvantage.  If  such  a  riile 
were  adopted,  and  a  proper  ratio  once  established,  it  would 
be  pretty  likely  to  continue,  unless  there  were  a  very  large 
increase  in  the  production  of  one  metal  or  the  other.  If 
the  supply  of  gold  in  proportion  to  silver  were  diminished 
a  little,  the  corresponding  demand  for  silver  by  all  man- 
kind would  bring  up  its  price  and  cure  the  inequality.  So, 
if  the  supply  of  gold  were  to  increase  in  proportion  to  silver, 
a  like  effect  would  take  place. 

If,  however,  the  nations  of  the  world  were  to  agree  on  one 
metal  alone,  it  was  best  that  the  most  precious  metal  should 
be  taken  for  the  purpose. 

The  above,  in  substance,  was  the  doctrine  of  Alexander 
Hamilton,  the  ablest  practical  financier  and  economist  that 
ever  lived,  certainly  without  a  rival  in  this  country. 

The  duties  specially  assigned  to  me  in  the  Senate  and  in 
the  House  related  to  other  matters.  But  I  made  as  thorough 
and  faithful  a  study  as  I  could  of  this  great  question,  and 
accepted  Hamilton's  conclusions.  I  believed  they  were 
right  in  themselves,  and  thought  the  reasons  by  which  they 
were  supported,  although  the  subject  is  complex  and  diffi- 
cult, likely  to  find  favor  with  the  American  people.  Silver 
has  always  been  a  favorite  metal  with  mankind  from  the 
beginning.  While  gold  may  be  the  standard  of  value,  it  is 
too  precious  to  be  a  convenient  medium  of  payment  for 
small  sums,  such  as  enter  into  the  daily  transactions  of  ordi- 
nary life.  It  is  said  that  you  can  no  more  have  a  double 
standard,  or  two  measures  of  value,  than  you  can  have  a 
double  standard,  or  two  measures  of  distance.  But  the  com- 
pensating effect  may  be  well  illustrated  by  what  is  done  by 
the  makers  of  clocks  for  the  most  delicate  measurements  of 
time,  such  as  are  used  for  astronomical  calculations.     The 


accuracy  of  the  clock  depends  upon  the  length  of  the  pendu- 
lum and  the  weight  which  the  pendulum  supports.  If  the 
disk  at  the  end  of  the  pendulum  be  hung  by  a  wire  of  a 
single  metal,  that  metal  expands  and  shrinks  in  length  under 
changing  atmospheric  influences,  and  affects  the  clock's  rec- 
ord of  time.  So  the  makers  of  these  clocks  resort  to  two  or 
three  wires  of  different  metals,  differently  affected  by  the 
atmosphere.  One  of  these  compensates  for  and  supplements 
the  other,  so  that  the  atmospheric  changes  have  much  less 
effect  than  upon  a  single  metal. 

Beside  the  fact  that  I  thoroughly  believed  in  the  sound- 
ness of  bimetallism,  as  I  now  believe  in  it,  I  thought  we 
ought  not  to  give  our  antagonists  who  were  pressing  us  so 
hard,  and  appealing  so  zealously  to  every  debtor  and  every 
man  in  pecuniary  difficulties,  the  advantage,  in  debate  before 
the  people,  of  arraying  on  their  side  all  our  great  authori- 
ties of  the  past.  We  had  enough  on  our  hands  to  encounter 
Mr.  Bryan  and  the  solid  South  and  the  powerful  Demo- 
cratic Party  of  New  York  and  the  other  great  cities,  and 
every  man  in  the  country  who  was  uneasy  and  discontented, 
without  giving  them  the  right  to  claim  as  their  allies  Alex- 
ander Hamilton,  and  George  Washington,  and  Oliver  Ells- 
worth, and  John  C.  Calhoun,  and  Daniel  Webster,  and 
Henry  Clay,  and  Thomas  H.  Benton.  I  was,  therefore, 
eager  that  the  Eepublican  Party  should  state  frankly  in  its 
platform  what  I,  myself,  deemed  the  sound  doctrine.  It 
should  denounce  and  condemn  the  attempt  to  establish  the 
free  coinage  of  silver  by  the  power  of  the  United  States 
alone,  and  declare  that  to  be  practical  repudiation  and  na- 
tional ruin.  But  I  thought  we  ought  also  to  declare  our 
willingness,  if  the  great  commercial  nations  of  the  earth 
would  agree,  to  establish  a  bimetallic  system  on  a  ratio  to 
be  agreed  upon. 

Some  of  the  enemies  of  the  Eepublican  Party,  who  could 
not  adopt  the  Democratic  plan  for  the  free  coinage  of  sil- 
ver, without  contradicting  all  their  utterances  in  the  past, 
denounced  this  proposal  as  a  subterfuge,  a  straddle,  an  at- 
tempt to  deceive  the  people  and  get  votes  by  pledges  not 
meant  to  be  carried  out. 


I  believed  theB,  and  I  believe  now,  that  we  were  right  in 
demanding  that  the  Republican  Party  should  go  into  the 
campaign  with  the  declaration  I  have  stated. 

It  is  true  that  you  cannot  give  value  to  any  commodity 
by  law.  It  is  as  idle  to  attempt  to  make  an  ounce  of  silver 
worth  as  much  as  an  ounce  of  gold  by  legislation,  as  it  is  to 
try  to  make  one  pound  weigh  two  pounds,  or  one  yard  meas- 
ure two  yards.  You  cannot  increase  the  price  of  a  hat,  or 
a  coat,  or  a  farm,  by  act  of  Congress.  The  value  of  every 
article,  whether  gold  or  silver,  whether  used  as  money  or  as 
merchandise,  must  depend  upon  the  inexorable  law  of  de- 
mand and  supply.  But  you  can,  by  legislation,  compel  the 
use  of  an  article,. which  use  will  create  a  demand  for  it,  and 
the  demand  will  then  increase  its  price.  If  Congress  shall 
require  that  every  soldier  in  the  United  States  Army  shall 
wear  a  hat  or  a  coat  of  a  particular  material  or  pattern,  or 
shall  enact  that  every  man  who  votes  shall  come  to  the  polls 
dressed  in  broadcloth,  if  there  be  a  limited  supply  of  these 
commodities,  the  price  of  the  hat  or  the  coat  or  the  broad- 
cloth will  go  up.  So,  when  the  nations  of  the  world  joined 
in  depriving  silver  of  one  of  its  chief  uses — that  of  serving 
the  function  of  a  tender  for  the  payment  of  debts,  the  value 
of  silver  diminished  because  one  large  use  which  it  had 
served  before  was  gone.  Whether  this  doctrine  be  sound  or 
no,  it  was  the  result  of  as  careful  study  as  I  ever  gave  in  my 
life,  to  any  subject,  public  or  private.  It  was  not  only  the 
doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  but  of  recent  generations.  It  was 
the  doctrine  on  which  the  Republicans  of  Massachusetts,  a 
community  noted  for  its  conservatism  and  business  sagacity, 
had  planted  the  Commonwealth,  and  it  was  the  doctrine  on 
which  the  American  people  planted  itself  and  which  tri- 
umphed in  the  election  of  1896. 

I  have  been  accused,  sometimes,  of  want  of  sincerity,  and, 
by  one  leading  New  England  paper,  with  having  an  imper- 
fect and  confused  understanding  of  the  subject.  Perhaps  I 
may  be  pardoned,  therefore,  for  quoting  two  testimonials  to 
the  value  of  my  personal  contribution  to  this  debate.  One 
came  from  Senator  Clay  of  Georgia,  one  of  the  ablest  of 
the  Democratic  leaders.     After  I  had  stated  my  doctrine  in 


a  brief  speech,  in  the  Senate  one  day,  lie  crossed  the  cham- 
ber and  said  to  me  that,  while  he  did  not  accept  it,  he  thought 
I  had  made  the  ablest  and  most  powerful  statement  of  it  he 
had  ever  heard  or  read.  The  other  came  from  Charles 
Emory  Smith,  afterward  a  member  of  President  McKin- 
ley's  Cabinet  and  editor  of  the  Press,  a  leading  paper  in 
Philadelphia.  I  have  his  letter  in  which  he  says  that  he 
thinks  that  an  edition  of  at  least  a  million  copies  of  my 
speech  on  gold  and  silver  should  be  published  and  circu- 
lated through  the  country.  He  also  said,  in  an  article  in 
the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  June  14,  1902 : 

"In  the  great  contest  over  the  repeal  of  the  Silver  Pur- 
chase Act  he  made  the  most  luminous  exposition,  both  of 
what  had  been  done,  and  the  reasons  for  it ;  and  what  ought 
to  be  done,  and  the  grounds  for  it,  that  was  heard  in  the 
Senate. ' ' 

It  occurred  to  me  that  I  could  render  a  very  great  service 
to  my  country,  during  my  absence,  if  I  could  be  instru- 
mental in  getting  a  declaration  from  England  and  France 
that  those  countries  would  join  with  the  United  States  in  an 
attempt  to  reestablish  silver  as  a  legal  tender. 

It  was  well  known  that  Mr.  Balfour,  Leader  of  the  Admin- 
istration in  the  House  of  Commons,  was  an  earnest  bimetal- 
list.  He  had  so  declared  himself  in  public,  both  in  the 
House  and  elsewhere,  more  than  once. 

There  had  been  a  resolution,  not  long  before,  signed  by 
more  than  two  thirds  of  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies, 
declaring  that  France  was  ready  to  take  a  similar  action 
whenever  England  would  move.  I,  accordingly,  with  the 
intervention  of  Mr.  Frewen,  the  English  friend  I  have  just 
mentioned,  arranged  an  interview  with  Mr.  Balfour  in 
Downing  Street.  We  had  a  very  pleasant  conversation  in- 
deed. I  told  him  that  if  he  were  willing,  in  case  the  United 
States,  with  France  and  Germany  and  some  of  the  smaller 
nations,  would  establish  a  common  standard  for  gold  and 
silver,  to  declare  that  the  step  would  have  the  approval  of 
England,  and  that,  although  she  would  maintain  the  gold 


standard  alone  for  domestic  purposes,  she  would  make  a 
substantial  and  most  important  contribution  to  the  success 
of  the  joint  undertaking,  that  it  would  insure  the  defeat  of 
the  project  for  silver  monometallism,  from  which  England, 
who  was  so  largely  our  creditor,  would  suffer,  in  the  begin- 
ning almost  as  much  as  we  would,  and  perhaps  much  more, 
and  would  avert  the  panic  and  confusion  in  the  business  of 
the  world  which  would  be  brought  about  by  the  success  of 
the  project. 

I  did  not  state  to  Mr.  Balfour  exactly  what  I  thought  the 
contribution  of  England  to  this  result  ought  to  be.  He,  on 
the  other  hand,  did  not  tell  me  what  he  thought  she  would 
do.  I  did  not,  of  course,  expect  that  England  would  estab- 
lish the  free  coinage  of  silver  for  her  own  domestic  pur- 
poses. But  I  thought  it  quite  likely  that  she  would  declare 
her  cordial  approval  of  the  proposed  arrangement  between 
the  other  countries,  and  would  reopen  her  India  mints  to  the 
free  coinage  of  the  rupee,  and  maintain  the  silver  standard 
for  the  Queen's  three  hundred  million  subjects  in  Asia. 
This  contribution,  I  thought,  if  Great  Britain  went  no  far- 
ther, would  give  great  support  to  silver,  and  would  ensure 
the  success  of  the  concerted  attempt  of  the  other  commer- 
cial nations  to  restore  silver  to  its  old  place. 

Mr.  Balfour  expressed  his  assent  to  my  proposal,  and 
entered  heartily  into  the  scheme.  He  said  he  would  be  very 
happy  indeed  to  make  such  a  declaration.  I  suggested  to 
him  that  I  had  been  authorized  to  say,  by  one  or  two  gentle- 
men with  whom  I  had  talked,  that,  if  he  were  willing,  a 
deputation  of  the  friends  of  Bimetallism  would  wait  upon 
him,  to  whom  he  cou,ld  express  his  opinion  and  purpose. 
He  said  he  thought  it  would  be  better  that  he  should  write 
a  letter  to  me,  and  that  if  I  would  write  to  him  stating  what 
I  had  said  orally,  he  would  answer  it  with  such  a  statement 
as  I  desired.  I  told  him  I  was  going  to  Paris  in  a  few  days, 
and  that  I  would  write  to  him  from  Paris  when  I  got  there. 
The  matter  was  left  in  that  way.  The  next  day,  or  the  next 
day  but  one,  a  luncheon  was  given  me  at  White's,  the  club 
famous  for  its  memories  of  Pitt  and  Canning  and  the  old 
statesmen  of  that  time,  and  still  the  resort  of  many  of  the 


Conservative  leaders  of  to-day.  There  were  present  some 
fifteen  or  twenty  gentlemen,  including  several  members  of 
the  Government.  A  gentleman  who  had  Imown  of  my  inter- 
view with  Mr.  Balfour,  and  sat  at  the  table  some  distance 
from  me,  made  some  allusion  to  it  which  was  heard  by  most 
of  the  guests.  I  said  that  I  did  not  like  to  repeat  what  Mr. 
Balfour  had  said ;  that  gentlemen  in  his  position  preferred, 
if  their  opinions  were  to  be  made  public,  to  do  it  for  them- 
selves, rather  than  to  have  anybody  else  do  it  for  them. 
To  this,  one  member  of  the  Government— I  think  it  was 
Sir  Michael  Hicks-Beach,  but  I  will  not  undertake  to  be 
sure— said:  "It  is  no  secret  that  Mr.  Balfour's  opinions 
are  those  of  a  majority  of  Her  Majesty's  Government." 

I  went  to  Paris,  and  wrote  at  once  the  letter  that  had  been 
agreed  upon,  of  which  I  have  in  my  possession  a  copy.  I 
at  once  secured  an  introduction  to  M.  Fougirot,  the  Member 
of  the  French  Assembly  who  had  drawn  and  procured  the 
signatures  to  the  resolution  to  which  I  just  referred.  That 
is,  I  am  told,  a  not  uncommon  way  in  France  of  declaring 
the  sense  of  the  House  in  anticipation  of  a  more  formal  vote. 
He  entered  heartily  into  the  plan.  He  thought  Germany 
would  at  once  agree,  at  any  rate,  he  was  sure  that  Belgium, 
Spain,  Italy  and  all  the  European  commercial  powers  would 
come  into  the  arrangement,  and  that  the  whole  thing  would 
be  absolutely  sure  if  Great  Britain  were  to  agree.  I  waited 
a  week  or  two  for  the  letter  from  Mr.  Balfour.  In  the  mean- 
time I  got  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frewen,  who  told  me  that  Mr. 
Balfour  had  shown  him  the  letter  he  had  written  to  me ;  that 
it  was  admirable,  and  eminently  satisfactory.  But  no  let- 
ter came.  I  waited  another  week  or  two,  and  then  got  an- 
other letter  from  Mr.  Frewen,  in  which  he  said  that  he  had 
taken  no  copy  of  Mr.  Balfour's  letter,  and  had  returned  the 
original,  and  asked  me,  if  I  had  no  objection,  if  I  would  give 
him  a  copy  of  it.  I  answered  that  I  had  heard  nothing, 
whereupon  Mr.  Frewen  wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  Balfour,  telling 
him  that  I  had  not  heard.  Mr.  Balfour  said  that  he  had, 
after  writing  the  letter,  submitted  it  to  a  meeting  of  his  col- 
leagues ;  that  one  of  them  had  expressed  his  most  emphatic 
disapproval  of  the  plan,  and  that  he  did  not  feel  warranted 


in  taking  sucli  a  step  against  the  objection  of  one  of  Ms  col- 
leagues. I  gathered,  from  what  I  heard  afterward,  that  Mr. 
Balfour  wished  he  had  sent  the  letter  without  communi- 
cating its  contents.  But  of  this  I  have  no  right  to  be  sure. 
Mr.  Balfour  sent  Mr.  Frewen  the  following  letter,  which  is 
now  in  my  possession.  It  was,  I  suppose  with  his  approval, 
sent  to  me. 

10  Downing  Steeet,  Whitehall,  S.  W. 

August  6,  1896. 
Deab  Moreton  Feewen. 

I  think  Senator  Hoar  has  just  reason  to  complain  of  my 
long  silence.  But,  the  truth  is  that  I  was  unwilling  to  tell 
him  that  my  hopes  of  sending  him  a  letter  for  publication 
had  come  to  an  end,  until  I  was  really  certain  that  this  was 
the  case.  I  am  afraid  however  that  even  if  I  am  able  now 
to  overcome  the  objections  of  my  colleagues,  the  letter  itself 
would  be  too  late  to  do  much  good.  Please  let  me  know 
what  you  think  on  this  subject. 

Yours  sincerely, 

Aethue  James  Balfoue. 

I  never  blamed  him.  He  was  in  the  midst  of  a  good  deal 
of  difficulty  with  his  Education  Bill.  Certainly  there  can 
be  no  obligation  on  the  Leader  of  the  English  House  of 
Commons  to  do  anything  that  he  is  not  sure  is  for  the  inter- 
ests of  his  own  country,  or  his  own  party,  for  the  sake  of 
benefiting  a  foreign  country,  still  less  for  the  sake  of  affect- 
ing its  politics.  Indeed,  I  suppose  Mr.  Balfour  would  have 
utterly  and  very  rightfully  disclaimed  any  idea  of  writing 
such  a  letter,  unless  he  thought  what  was  proposed  would 
benefit  England.  When  I  went  back  to  London,  an  offer 
was  made  me  later  to  arrange  another  interview  with  Mr. 
Balfour,  and  see  if  something  else  could  not  be  devised. 
This  I  declined.  I  thought  I  had  gone  as  far  as  I  properly 
could,  with  a  due  sense  of  my  own  dignity.  The  exigency 
at  home  had  pretty  much  passed  by. 

A  day  or  two  after  I  got  to  Paris,  after  I  had  seen  M. 
Fougirot,  I  cabled  my  colleague,  Mr.  Lodge,  at  St.  Louis, 


where  the  delegates  to  the  convention  to  nominate  a  Presi- 
dent were  then  gathering,  stating  my  hope  that  our  conven- 
tion would  insert  in  its  platform  a  declaration  of  the  purpose 
of  the  Republican  Party  to  obtain,  in  concert  with  other 
nations,  the  restoration  of  silver  as  a  legal  tender  in  com- 
pany with  gold,  and  that  I  had  reason  to  feel  sure  that  such 
a  plan  could  be  accomplished.  This  cable  reached  St.  Louis 
on  the  morning  the  convention  assembled.  I  do  not  know 
how  much  influence  it  had,  or  whether  it  had  any,  in  causing 
the  insertion  of  that  plank  in  the  platform.  Such  a  plank 
was  inserted.  In  my  opinion  it  saved  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion, and,  in  my  opinion,  in  saving  the  Presidential  election, 
it  saved  the  country  from  the  incalculable  evil  of  the  free 
coinage  of  silver. 

After  I  came  home,  at  the  next  winter's  session,  I  told 
the  story  of  what  I  had  done,  to  a  caucus  of  the  Republican 
Senators.  A  Committee  was  thereupon  appointed  by  John 
Sherman,  President  of  the  Caucus,  to  devise  proper  means 
for  keeping  the  pledge  of  the  National  platform  and  estab- 
lishing international  bimetallism  in  concurrence  with  other 
nations.  The  Committee  consisted  of  Messrs.  Wolcott, 
Hoar,  Chandler,  Carter  and  Gear.  They  reported  the  Act 
of  March  3,  1897,  authorizing  a  commission  to  visit  Europe 
for  that  purpose,  of  which  Senator  Wolcott  was  chairman. 

A  Commission  was  sent  abroad  by  President  McKinley, 
in  pursuance  of  the  pledge  of  the  Republican  National  plat- 
form, to  endeavor  to  effect  an  arrangement  with  the  leading 
European  nations  for  an  international  bimetallic  standard. 
Senator  Wolcott  of  Colorado,  who  was  the  head  of  this  Com- 
mission, told  me  he  was  emboldened  to  undertake  it  by  the 
account  I  had  given.  The  Commission  met  with  little  suc- 
cess. I  conjecture  that  the  English  Administration,  al- 
though a  majority  of  the  Government,  and  probably  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Conservative  Party,  were  Bimetallists  and 
favored  an  international  arrangement  on  principle,  did  not 
like  to  disturb  existing  conditions  at  the  risk  of  offending 
the  banking  interests  at  London,  especially  those  which  had 
charge  of  the  enormous  foreign  investments,  the  value  of 
which  would  be  constantly  increasing  so  long  as  their  debts 


were  payable,  principal  and  interest,  in  gold,  the  value  of 
wMch,  also,  was  steadily  appreciating. 

It  has  been  the  fashion  of  some  quite  zealous— I  will  not 
say  presumptuous,  still  less  ignorant  or  shallow  writers  on 
this  subject— to  charge  bimetallists  with  catering  to  a  mis- 
chievous, popular  delusion,  for  political  purposes,  or  with 
shallowness  in  thinking  or  investigating.  I  have  had  my 
share  of  such  criticism.  All  I  have  to  say  in  reply  to  it  is 
that  I  have  done  my  best  to  get  at  the  truth,  without,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  any  desire  except  to  get  at  and  utter  the 
truth.  In  addition  to  the  authority  of  our  own  early  states- 
men, and  to  that  of  the  eminent  Englishmen  to  whom  I  have 
referred,  I  wish  to  cite  that  of  my  pupil  and  dear  friend, 
Greneral  Francis  A.  Walker,  who  is  declared  by  abundant 
European,  as  well  as  American  authority,  to  be  the  foremost 
writer  on  money  of  modern  times.  He  was  a  thorough  be- 
liever in  the  doctrine  I  have  stated. 

He  pointed  out  the  danger,  indeed  the  ruin,  of  undertak- 
ing to  reestablish  silver  without  the  consent  of  foreign  na- 
tions. But  he  declared  that  the  happiness  and,  perhaps, 
the  safety  of  the  country  rested  on  Bimetallism.     He  said: 

"Indeed,  every  monometallist  ought  also  to  be  a  monocu- 
list.  Polyphemus,  the  old  Cyclops,  would  be  his  ideal.  Un- 
fortunately our  philosophers  were  not  in  the  Garden  of  Eden 
at  the  time  when  the  Creator  made  the  mistake  of  endowing 
men  with  eyes  in  pairs.  Perhaps  it  would  not  be  too  much 
to  say  that  there  are  probably  few  men  whose  eyes  do  not 
differ  from  each  other  as  to  every  element  affecting  vision 
by  more  than  the  degree  from  which  gold  and  silver  varied 
from  the  French  standard  of  fifteen  and  a  half  to  one  for 
whole  decades." 

The  German  Imperial  Parliament  passed  a  resolution,  in 
June,  1895,  in  favor  of  Bimetallism,  and  the  Prussian  Par- 
liament passed  a  resolution  favoring  an  international  bime- 
tallic convention,  provided  England  joined  it.  May  22,  1895. 

The  great  increase  in  the  gold  product  of  the  world,  and 
the  constant  diminution  in  the  value  of  silver,  have  put  an 


end  to  the  danger  of  the  movement  for  the  free  coinage  of 
silver,  and  made  the  question  purely  academic  or  theoretic, 
at  any  rate  for  a  good  while  to  come.  The  same  causes  have 
diminished  the  desire  for  a  bimetallic  standard,  and  make 
the  difficulty  of  establishing  a  parity  between  silver  and 
gold,  for  the  present,  almost  insuperable.  So  the  question 
which  excited  so  much  public  feeling  throughout  the  world 
for  nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  endangered  not  only 
the  ascendency  of  the  Republican  Party,  but  the  financial 
strength  of  the  United  States,  has  become  almost  wholly  one 
of  theory  and  of  ancient  history. 

After  leaving  Paris  I  spent  a  few  delightful  weeks  at 
Innsbruck  in  Austria,  and  Reichenhall  in  Germany,  both 
near  the  frontier  between  those  two  countries.  The  wonder- 
ful scenery  and  the  curious  architecture  and  antiquity  of 
those  towns  transport  one  back  to  the  Middle  Ages.  But  I 
suppose  they  are  too  well  known  now,  to  our  many  travel- 
lers, to  make  it  worth  while  to  describe  them.  I  went  to 
those  places  for  the  health  of  a  lady  nearly  allied  to  my 
household.  She  was  under  the  care  of  Baron  Liebig,  one 
of  the  most  famous  physicians  in  Germany,  the  son  of  the 
great  chemist.  I  got  quite  well  acquainted  with  him.  He 
was  a  very  interesting  man.  He  had  a  peculiar  method  of 
dealing  with  the  diseases  of  the  throat  and  lungs  like  those 
under  which  my  sister-in-law  suffered.  He  had  several 
large  oval  apartments,  air-tight,  with  an  inner  wall  made  of 
porcelain,  like  that  used  for  an  ordinary  vase  or  pitcher. 
From  these  he  excluded  all  the  air  of  the  atmosphere,  and 
supplied  its  place  with  an  artificial  air  made  for  the  purpose. 
The  patients  were  put  in  there,  remaining  an  hour  and  three 
quarters  or  two  hours  each  day— I  do  not  know  but  some  of 
them  a  longer  time.  Then  they  were  directed  to  take  long 
walks,  increasing  them  in  length  day  by  day,  a  considerable 
part  of  the  walk  being  up  a  steep  hill  or  mountain.  I  be- 
lieve his  method  was  of  very  great  value  to  the  patient  who 
was  in  my  company.  The  Baron  thought  he  could  effect  a 
complete  cure  if  she  could  stay  with  him  several  months. 
But  that  was  impossible. 



I  VISITED  England  again  in  1899.  I  did  not  go  to  the  Con- 
tinent or  to  Scotland.  My  wife  consulted  a  very  eminent 
London  physician  for  an  infirmity  of  the  heart.  He  told  her 
to  go  to  the  Isle  of  Wight ;  remain  there  a  few  weeks ;  then 
to  go  to  Boscombe ;  stay  a  few  weeks  there ;  then  to  Malvern 
Hills,  and  thence  to  a  high  place  in  Yorkshire,  which,  I 
believe,  is  nearly,  if  not  quite,  the  highest  inhabited  spot  in 
England.  This  treatment  was  eminently  advantageous. 
But  to  comply  with  the  doctor's  direction  took  all  the  time 
we  had  at  our  command  before  going  home. 

We  had  a  charming  and  delightful  time  in  the  Isle  of 
Wight.  We  stayed  at  a  queer  little  old  Inn,  known  as  the 
"Crab  and  Lobster,"  kept  by  Miss  Cass,  with  the  aid  of 
her  sister  and  niece.  We  made  excursions  about  the  island. 
I  saw  two  graves  side  by  side  which  had  a  good  deal  of 
romance  about  them.  One  was  the  grave  of  a  woman.  The 
stone  said  that  she  had  died  at  the  age  of  one  hundred  and 
seven.  By  its  side  was  the  grave  of  her  husband,  to  whom 
she  had  been  married  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  and  who  had 
died  just  after  the  marriage.  So  she  had  been  a  widow 
eighty-nine  years,  and  then  the  couple,  separated  in  their 
early  youth,  had  come  together  again  in  the  grave. 

We  found  a  singular  instance  of  what  Americans  think 
so  astonishing  in  England,  the  want  of  knowledge  by  the 
people  of  the  locality  with  which  they  were  familiar  in  life, 
of  persons  whose  names  have  a  world-wide  reputation.  In 
a  churchyard  at  Bonchurch,  about  a  mile  from  our  Inn  at 
Ventnor,  is  the  grave  of  John  Sterling— the  friend  of  Emer- 
son—of whom  Carlyle  wrote   a  memoir.     Sterling  is  the 



author  of  some  beautiful  hymns  and  other  poems,  including 
what  I  think  the  most  splendid  and  spirited  ballad  in  English 
literature,  "Alfred  the  Harper."  Yet  the  sexton  who  ex- 
hibited the  church  and  the  churchyard  did  not  seem  to  know 
anything  about  him,  and  the  booksellers  near  by  never  had 
heard  of  him.  The  sexton  showed,  with  great  pride,  the 
grave  of  Isaac  Williams,  author  of  the  "Shadow  of  the 
Cross"  and  some  other  rather  tame  religious  poetry.  He 
was  a  devout  and  good  man,  and  seemed  to  be  a  feeble  imi- 
tator of  Keble.  I  dare  say,  the  sexton  first  heard  of  Ster- 
ling and  saw  his  grave  when  we  showed  it  to  him. 

The  scenery  about  Boscombe  and  the  matchless  views  of 
the  Channel  are  a  perpetual  delight,  especially  the  sight,  on 
a  clear  day,  of  the  Needles. 

"We  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  obey  the  doctor 's  advice  to 
go  to  Yorkshire.  After  leaving  Boscombe,  I  spent  the  rest 
of  my  vacation  at  Malvern  Hills,  some  eight  or  nine  miles 
north  of  Worcester,  and  some  twenty  miles  from  Gloucester. 

The  chief  delight  of  that  summer— a  delight  that  dwells 
freshly  in  my  memory  to-day,  and  which  will  never  be  for- 
gotten while  my  memory  endures— was  a  journey  through 
the  Forest  of  Dean,  in  a  carriage,  in  company  with  my 
friend— alas,  that  I  must  say  my  late  friend!— John  Bel- 
lows, of  Gloucester.  ,  He  was,  I  suppose,  of  all  men  alive, 
best  qualified  to  be  a  companion  and  teacher  on  such  a 
journey.  He  has  written  and  published  for  the  American 
Antiquarian  Society  an  account  of  our  journey— a  most  de- 
lightful essay,  which  I  insert  in  the  appendix.  He  tells  the 
story  much  better  than  I  could  tell  it.  My  readers  will  do 
well  to  read  it,  even  if  they  skip  some  chapters  of  this  book 
for  the  purpose.  I  am  proud  and  happy  in  this  way  to  asso- 
ciate my  name  with  that  of  this  most  admirable  gentleman. 

I  visited  Gloucester.  I  found  the  houses  still  standing 
where  my  ancestors  dwelt,  and  the  old  tomb  in  the  Church 
of  St.  Mary  de  Crypt,  with  the  word  Hoare  cut  in  the  pave- 
ment in  the  chancel. 

My  ancestors  were  Puritans.  They  took  an  active  part 
in  the  resistance  to  Charles  I.,  and  many  traces  are  pre- 
served of  their  activity  in  the  civic  annals  of  Gloucester. 


Two  of  my  name  were  Sheriffs  in  those  days.  There  were 
two  other  Sheriffs  whose  wives  were  sisters  of  my  direct 
ancestors.  Charles  Hoar,  my  direct  ancestor,  married  one 
of  the  Clifford  family,  the  descendant  of  the  brother  of  Fair 
Eosamond,  and  their  arms  are  found  on  a  tomb,  and  also 
on  a  window  in  the  old  chnrch  at  Frampton-on-Severn,  eight 
miles  from  Gloucester,  where  the  Cliffords  are  buried.  The 
spot  where  fair  Eosamond  was  born,  still,  I  believe,  belongs 
to  the  Clifford  family. 

I  got  such  material  as  I  could  for  studying  the  history 
of  the  military  operations  which  preceded  the  siege  and 
capture  of  Worcester  and  the  escape  of  Charles  II.  Sev- 
eral of  the  old  houses  where  he  was  concealed  are  shown,  as 
also  one  in  Worcester  from  which  he  made  his  escape  out 
of  the  window  when  Worcester  was  stormed,  just  as  Crom- 
well's soldiers  were  entering  at  the  door. 

Shakespeare  used  to  pass  through  Gloucester  on  his  way 
to  London.  Some  of  his  celebrated  scenes  are  in  Glouces- 
tershire. The  tradition  is  that  Shakespeare's  company 
acted  in  the  yard  of  the  New  Inn,  at  Gloucester,  an  ancient 
hostelry  still  standing,  a  few  rods  only  from  the  Eaven 
Tavern,  which  belonged  to  my  ancestors,  and  is  mentioned 
in  one  of  their  wills  still  extant.  I  have  no  doubt  my  kin- 
dred of  that  time  saw  Shakespeare,  and  saw  him  act,  unless 
they  had  already  learned  the  Puritanism  which  came  to 
them,  if  not  before,  in  a  later  generation. 

I  purchased,  some  years  ago,  some  twenty  ancient  Glouces- 
tershire deeds,  of  various  dates,  but  all  between  1100  and 
1400.  One  of  them  was  witnessed  by  John  le  Hore.  It  was 
of  lands  at  Wotton-under-Edge  in  Gloucestershire.  I  have 
in  my  possession  a  will  of  Thomas  Hore  of  Bristol,  dated 
1466,  in  which  he  mentions  his  wife  Joanna,  and  his  daugh- 
ters Joanna  and  Margery,  and  his  sons  Thomas  and  John. 
These  names— Thomas,  John,  Joanna  and  Margery— are  the 
names  of  members  of  the  family  who  dwelt  in  the  city  at 
Gloucester  in  later  generations.  So  I  have  little  doubt  that 
Thomas  was  of  the  same  race,  although  there  is  a  link  in  the 
pedigree,  between  his  death  and  1560  or  1570  which  I  can- 
not   supply.     This    Thomas    bequeathes    land    at    Wotton- 


under-Edge,  so  I  conjecture  that  John  also  was  of  the  same 
race.  A  large  old  black  oak  chest  bound  with  iron,  be- 
queathed by  Thomas  to  Bristol  in  1466,  is  still  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  city. 

I  was  very  much  gratified  that  the  people  of  the  old  City 
of  Gloucester  were  glad  to  recognize  the  tie  of  kindred  which 
I,  myself,  feel  so  strongly.  I  received  a  handsome  box,  con- 
taining a  beautifully  bound  copy  of  an  account  of  the  City 
from  the  Trader's  Association  of  the  City  of  Gloucester. 
This  account  of  the  matter  appears  in  the  Echo,  a  local 
paper  of  July  4,  1899. 

Gloucester  City.     Gloucester  Traders'  Association. 
Interesting  Presentation 

On  Monday  evening  a  largely  attended  public  meeting 
was  held  in  the  Guildhall  under  the  auspices  of  the  Glouces- 
ter Traders'  Association  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  ad- 
dresses on  "The  municipal  electricity  supply."  Mr.  D. 
Jones  (president)  occupied  the  chair,  and  there  were  also 
present  on  the  platform  the  Mayor  (Mr.  H.  R.  J.  Braine), 
City  High  Sheriff  (Mr.  A.  V.  Hatton),  Councillors  Hol- 
brook,  Poole  and  several  members  of  the  association. 

The  Chairman  said  that  in  his  position  as  president  of  the 
association  it  was  his  pleasurable  duty  to  present  a  copy  of 
their  guide  to  Mr.  G.  F.  Hoar,  the  distinguished  member  of 
the  United  States  Government,  who  had  always  taken  a 
great  interest  in  their  historic  City. — The  presentation  con- 
sisted of  a  handsomely  carved  box  made  by  Messrs.  Mat- 
thews and  Co.  from  pieces  of  historic  English  oak  supplied 
by  Mr.  H.  Y.  J.  Taylor.  On  the  outside  of  the  cover  are 
engraved  the  City  arms,  and  a  brass  plate  explaining  the 
presentation.  A  beautifully  printed  copy  of  the  well-known 
guide,  bound  in  red  morocco,  has  been  placed  within,  and  on 
the  inside  of  the  cover  there  is  the  following  illuminated 
address : 

"To  the  Hon.  G.  F.  Hoar,  of  Worcester,  Mass.,  Senator 
of  the  United  States  of  America.  Sir,— The  members  of 
the  Traders'  Association,  Gloucester,  England,  ask  your  ac- 


ceptance  of  a  bound  copy  of  their  guide  to  this  ancient  and 
historic  City,  together  with  this  box  made  from  part  of  a 
rafter  taken  from  the  room  in  which  Bishop  Hooper  was 
lodged  the  night  before  his  burning,  and  from  oak  formerly 
in  old  All  Saints'  Church,  as  souvenirs  of  the  regard  which 
the  association  entertains  for  you  and  its  recognition  of  your 
ardent  affection  for  the  City  of  Gloucester,  the  honored  place 
of  the  nativity  of  the  progenitor  of  your  family,  Charles 
Hoar,  who  was  elder  Sheriff  in  1634 ;  and  may  these  sincere 
expressions  also  be  typical  of  the  sterling  friendship  exist- 
ing between  Great  Britain  and  America." 

' '  Senator  Hoar  had  been  unable  to  attend  the  meeting,  and 
the  presentation  was  entrusted  to  the  American  Vice- Con- 
sul, Mr.  E.  H.  Palin,  to  forward  to  him.  Eemarking  on 
the  presentation,  the  Mayor  expressed  his  regret  that  Mr. 
Hoar  had  been  unable  to  accept  the  high  and  important  posi- 
tion of  American  Ambassador  which  had  been  offered  to 
him.  Addresses  on  the  installation  of  the  electric  light  were 
then  given  by  Mr.  Hammond,  M.I.C.E.,  and  Mr.  Spencer 
Hawes. ' ' 

I  was  invited  by  the  Corporation  of  the  City  to  visit  them 
in  the  fall  and  receive  the  freedom  of  the  City,  which  was 
to  be  bestowed  at  the  same  time  on  Sir  Michael  Hicks- 
Beach.  But  I  had  arranged  to  return  to  the  United  States 
before  the  time  fixed  for  the  ceremonial.  So  I  was  deprived 
of  that  great  pleasure  and  honor. 

I  had  a  great  longing  to  hear  the  nightingale.  I  find  in 
an  old  memorandum  that  I  heard  the  nightingale  in  War- 
wickshire in  1860,  somewhere  about  the  twentieth  of  May. 
But  the  occurrence,  and  the  song  of  the  bird,  have  wholly 
faded  from  my  memory.  When  I  was  abroad  in  1892  and 
'96  I  hoped  to  hear  the  song.  But  I  was  too  late.  Mrs. 
Warre,  wife  of  the  Eector  of  Bemerton,  George  Herbert's 
Parsonage,  told  me  that  the  nightingales  were  abundant  in 
her  own  garden  close  to  the  Avon,  but  that  they  did  not  sing 
after  the  beginning  of  the  nesting  session  which,  according 
to  a  note  to  White's  "History  of  Selborne,"  lasts  from  the 
beginning  of  May  to  the  early  part  of  June.     Waller  says : 


Thus  the  wise  nightingale  that  leaves  her  home, 
Pursuing  constantly  the  cheerful  spring, 
To  foreign  groves  does  her  old  music  bring. 

There  are  some  counties  in  England  where  the  bird  is  not 
found.  It  is  abundant  in  Warwickshire,  Gloucester  and  the 
Isle  of  Wight.  It  is  not  found  in  Scotland,  Derbyshire  or 
Yorkshire  or  Devon  or  Cornwall.  Attempts  to  introduce  it 
in  those  places  have  failed.  The  reason  is  said  to  be  that 
its  insect  food  does  not  exist  there. 

I  utterly  failed  to  hear  the  nightingale,  although  I  was 
very  close  upon  his  track.  On  the  night  of  the  fifth  of 
June  at  Freshwater,  close  to  Tennyson's  home,  we  were 
taken  by  a  driver,  between  eleven  and  twelve  at  night,  to 
two  copses  in  one  of  which  he  said  he  had  heard  the  night- 
ingale the  night  before ;  and  at  the  other  they  had  been  heard 
by  somebody,  from  whom  he  got  the  information,  within  a 
very  few  days.  But  the  silence  was  unbroken,  notwith- 
standing our  patience  and  the  standing  reward  I  had  offered 
to  anybody  who  would  find  one  that  I  could  hear.  Two 
different  nights  shortly  afterward,  I  was  driven  out  several 
miles  past  groves  where  the  bird  was  said  to  be  heard  fre- 
quently. Nothing  came  of  it.  May  29,  at  Gloucester,  I  rode 
with  my  friend,  H.  T.  J.  Taylor,  Esq.,  an  accomplished  anti- 
quary, out  into  the  country.  We  passed  a  hillside  where  he 
said  he  had  heard  the  nightingale  about  eleven  o  'clock  in  the 
daytime  the  week  before.     Shakespeare  says : 

The  nightingale,  if  she  should  sing  by  day. 
When  every  goose  is  cackling,  would  be 
No  better  a  musician  than  the  wren. 

But  the  nightingale  does  sometimes  sing  by  day.  Mr. 
Taylor  says  that  on  the  morning  he  spoke  of  the  whole  field 
seemed  to  be  full  of  singing  birds.  There  were  larks  and 
finches  and  linnets  and  thrushes,  and  I  think  other  birds 
whose  names  I  do  not  remember.  But  when  the  nightingale 
set  up  his  song  every  other  bird  stopped.  They  seemed  as 
much  spellbound  by  the  singing  as  he  was,  and  Philomel  had 
the  field  to  himself  till  the  song  was  over.    It  was  as  if 


Jenny  Lind  had  come  into  a  country  cinirch  when  the  rustic 
choir  of  boys  and  girls  were  performing. 

The  nightingale  will  sometimes  sing  out  of  season  if  his 
mate  be  killed,  or  if  the  nest  with  the  eggs  therein  be  de- 

He  is  not  a  shy  bird.  He  comes  out  into  the  highway 
and  will  fly  in  and  out  of  the  hedges,  sometimes  following 
a  traveller.  And  the  note  of  one  bird  will,  in  the  singing 
season,  provoke  the  others,  so  that  a  dozen  or  twenty  will 
sometimes  be  heard  rivalling  one  another  at  night,  making 
it  impossible  for  the  occupants  of  the  farmhouses  to  sleep. 

The  superstition  is  well  known  that  if  a  new-married  man 
hear  the  cuckoo  before  he  hear  the  nightingale  in  the  spring, 
his  married  peace  will  be  invaded  by  some  stranger  within 
the  year.  But  if  the  nightingale  be  heard  first  he  will  be 
happy  in  his  love.  It  is  said  that  the  young  married  swains 
in  the  country  take  great  pains  to  hear  the  nightingale  first. 
"We  all  remember  Milton's  sonnet: 

0  nightingale,  that  on  yon  bloomy  Spray 
"Warbl'est  at  eve,  when  all  the  woods  are  still. 
Thou  with  fresh  hope  the  Lover's  heart  dost  fill, 
While  the  jolly  hours  lead  on  propitious  May, 
Thy  liquid  notes  that  close  the  eye  of  Day, 
First  heard  before  the  shallow  Cuckoo's  bill 
Portend  success  in  love ;   O,  if  Jove 's  will 
Have  linkt  that  amorous  power  to  thy  soft  lay, 
Now  timely  sing,  ere  the  rude  bird  of  Hate 
Foretell  my  hopeless  doom  in  some  Grove  nigh; 

As  thou  from  year  to  year  hast  sung  too  late 
For  my  relief ;  yet  hadst  no  reason  why. 
Whether  the  Muse,  or  Love,  call  thee  his  mate, 
Both  them  I  serve,  and  of  their  train  am  I. 

I  had  a  funny  bit  of  evidence  that  this  superstition  is  not 
entirely  forgotten.  A  very  beautiful  young  lady  called  upon 
us  in  London  just  as  we  were  departing  for  the  Isle  of 
Wight.  I  told  her  of  my  great  longing  to  hear  the  night- 
ingale, and  that  I  hoped  to  get  a  chance.  She  said  that  she 
had  just  come  from  one  of  her  husband's  country  estates; 


that  she  had  not  seen  a  nightingale  or  heard  one  this  year, 
although  they  were  very  abundant  there.  She  said  she  had 
seen  a  cuckoo,  which  came  about  the  same  time.  I  suppose 
she  observed  a  look  of  amusement  on  my  countenance,  for 
she  added  quick  as  lightning,  "But  he  didn't  speak." 

I  made  this  year  a  delightful  visit  to  Cambridge  Univer- 
sity. I  was  the  guest  of  Dr.  Butler,  the  Master  of  Trinity, 
and  his  accomplished  wife,  who  had,  before  her  marriage, 
beaten  the  young  men  of  Cambridge  in  all  of  the  examina- 
tions. Dr.  Butler  spoke  very  kindly  of  William  Everett, 
with  whom  he  had  been  contemporary  at  Cambridge.  He 
told  me  that  Edward  Everett,  when  he  received  his  degree 
at  Oxford,  was  treated  with  great  incivility  by  the  throng 
of  undergraduates,  not  because  he  was  an  American,  but 
because  he  was  a  Unitarian.  I  told  this  story  afterward 
to  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams.  He  confirmed  it^  and  said 
that  his  father  had  refused  the  degree  because  he  did  not 
wish  to  expose  himself  to  a  like  incivility. 

I  dined  in  the  old  hall  of  Trinity,  and  met  many  very 
eminent  scholars.  I  saw  across  the  room  Mr.  Myers,  the 
author  of  the  delightful  essays,  but  did  not  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  speak  to  him.  I  was  introduced,  among  other 
gentlemen,  to  Aldus  Wright,  Vice  or  Deputy  Master,  emi- 
nent for  his  varied  scholarship,  and  to  Mr.  Frazer,  who  had 
just  published  his  admirable  edition  of  Pausanias. 

A  great  many  years  ago  I  heard  a  story  from  Eiehard  H. 
Dana,  illustrating  the  cautious  and  conservative  fashions  of 
Englishmen.  He  told  me  that  when  the  Judges  went  to 
Cambridge  for  the  Assizes  they  always  lodged  in  the  House 
of  the  Master  of  Trinity,  which  was  a  royal  foundation,  the 
claim  being,  thg,t  as  they  represented  the  King,  they  lodged 
there  as  of  right.  On  the  other  hand  the  College  claims  that 
they  are  there  as  the  guests  of  the  College,  and  indebted  to 
its  hospitality  solely  for  their  lodging.  When  the  Judges 
approach  Cambridge,  the  Master  of  Trinity  goes  out  to  meet 
them,  and  expresses  the  hope  that  they  will  make  their  home 
at  the  College  during  their  stay;  to  which  the  Judges  reply 
that  "They  are  coming."  The  Head  of  the  College  con- 
ducts them  to  the  door.    When  it  is  reached,  each  party 


bows  and  invites  the  other  to  go  in.  They  go  in,  and  the 
Judges  stay  until  the  Assize  is  over.  This  ceremony  has 
gone  on  for  four  hundred  years,  and  it  never  yet  has  been 
settled  whether  the  Judges  have  a  right  in  the  Master's 
house,  or  only  are  there  as  guests  and  by  courtesy.  I  sup- 
pose that  in  the  United  States  both  sides  would  fight  that 
question  until  it  was  settled  somehow.  Each  would  say: 
"I  am  very  willing  to  have  the  other  there.  But  I  want  to 
know  whether  he  has  any  right  there."  I  asked  about  the 
truth  of  this  story.  Dr.  Butler  said  it  was  true  and  seemed, 
if  I  understood  him  aright,  to  think  the  Judges'  claim  was 
a  good  one.  Mr.  Wright,  the  Deputy  Master,  to  whom  I 
also  put  the  question,  spoke  of  it  with  rather  less  respect. 


I  HAVE  had  occasion  several  times  to  prepare  the  Repub- 
lican platform  for  the  State  Convention.  The  last  time  I 
undertook  the  duty  was  in  1894.  I  was  quite  busy.  I 
shrunk  from  the  task  and  put  it  off  until  the  time 
approached  for  the  Convention,  and  it  would  not  do 
to  wait  any  longer.  So  I  got  up  one  morning  and  re- 
solved that  I  would  shut  myself  up  in  my  library  and  not 
leave  it  until  the  platform  was  written.  Accordingly  I  sat 
down  after  breakfast,  with  the  door  shut,  and  taking  a  pencil 
made  a  list  of  the  topics  about  which  I  thought  there  should 
be  a  declaration  in  the  platform. 

I  wrote  each  at  the  top  of  a  separate  page  on  a  scratch- 
block,  intending  to  fill  them  out  in  the  usual  somewhat 
grandiloquent  fashion  which  seems  to  belong  to  that  kind 
of  literature.    I  supposed  I  had  a  day's  work  before  me. 

It  suddenly  occurred  to  me :  Why  not  take  these  headings 
just  as  they  are,  and  make  a  platform  of  them,  leaving  the 
Convention  or  the  public  to  amplify  as  they  may  think  fit 
afterward.  Accordingly  I  tore  out  the  leaves  from  the 
scratch-block,  and  handed  them  to  a  secretary  to  be  put  into 
type.     The  whole  proceeding  did  not  take  fifteen  minutes. 

The  sense  of  infinite  relief  that  the  Convention  had  when, 
after  listening  for  a  moment  or  two,  they  found  I  was  get- 
ting over  what  they  expected  as  a  rather  tedious  job,  with 
great  rapidity,  was  delightful  to  behold.  I  do  not  believe 
there  was  ever  a  political  platform  received  in  this  country 
with  such  approval,  certainly  by  men  who  listened  to  it,  as 



''The  principles  of  the  Eepublicans  of  Massachusetts  are 
as  well  known  as  the  Commonwealth  itself;  well  known  as 
the  Republic ;  well  known  as  Liberty ;  well  known  as  Justice. 



Chief  among  them  are: 

An  equal  share  in  Government  for  every  citizen. 

Best  possible  wages  for  every  workman. 

The  American  market  for  American  labor. 

Every  dollar  paid  by  the  Grovernment,  both  the  gold  and 
the  silver  dollars  of  the  Constitution,  and  their  paper  repre- 
sentatives, honest  and  unchanging  in  value  and  equal  to 
every  other. 

Better  immigration  laws. 

Better  naturalization  laws. 

No  tramp.  Anarchist,  criminal  or  pauper  to  be  let  in,  so 
that  citizenship  shall  not  be  stained  or  polluted. 

Sympathy  with  Liberty  and  Eepublican  government  at 
home  and  abroad. 

Americanism  everywhere. 

The  flag  never  lowered  or  dishonored. 

No  surrender  in  Samoa. 

No  barbarous  Queen  beheading  men  in  Hawaii. 

No  lynching. 

No  punishment  without  trial. 

Faith  kept  with  the  pensioner. 

No  deserving  old  soldier  in  the  poorhouse. 

The  suppression  of  dram  drinking  and  dram  selling. 

A  school  at  the  public  charge  open  to  all  the  children,  and 
free  from  partisan  or  sectarian  control. 

No  distinction  of  birth  or  religious  creed  in  the  rights  of 
American  citizenship. 

Devotion  paramount  and  supreme  to  the  country  and  to 
the  flag. 

Clean  politics. 

Pure  administration. 

No  lobby. 

Reform  of  old  abuses. 

Leadership  along  loftier  paths. 

Minds  ever  open  to  the  sunlight  and  the  morning,  ever 
open  to  new  truth  and  new  duty  as  the  new  years  bring  their 
lessons. ' ' 

I  ought  to  explain  one  phrase  in  this  platform,  which  I 
have  since  much  regretted.     That  is  the  phrase  "No  bar- 


barous  Queen  beheading  men  in  Hawaii. ' '  It  was  currently 
reported  in  tbe  press  that  the  Queen  of  Hawaii^  Liliuoka- 
lani,  was  a  semi-barbarous  person,  and  that  when  Mr. 
Blount,  Mr.  Cleveland's  Commissioner,  proposed  to  restore 
her  government  and  said  that  amnesty  should  be  extended 
to  all  persons  who  had  taken  part  in  the  revolution,  she  had 
said  with  great  indignation,  "What,  is  no  one  to  be  be- 
headed?" and  that  upon  that  answer  Mr.  Blount  and  Mr. 
Cleveland  had  abandoned  any  further  purpose  of  using  the 
power  of  the  United  States  to  bring  the  monarchy  back 
again.  That,  so  far  as  I  knew,  had  never  been  contradicted 
and  had  obtained  general  belief. 

I  ought  not  to  have  accepted  the  story  without  investiga- 
tion. I  learned  afterward,  from  undoubted  authority,  that 
the  Queen  is  an  excellent  Christian  woman;  that  she  has 
done  her  best  to  reconcile  her  subjects  of  her  own  race  to  the 
new  order  of  things ;  that  she  thinks  it  is  better  for  them  to 
be  under  the  power  of  the  United  States  than  under  that  of 
any  other  country,  and  that  they  could  not  have  escaped 
being  subjected  to  some  other  country  if  we  had  not  taken 
them ;  and  that  she  expended  her  scanty  income  in  educating 
and  caring  for  the  children  of  the  persons  who  were  about 
her  court  who  had  lost  their  own  resources  by  the  revolu- 
tion. I  have  taken  occasion,  more  than  once,  to  express,  in 
the  Senate,  my  respect  for  her,  and  my  regret  for  this  mis- 


When  I  was  in  the  House  the  salaries  of  the  Judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  were  raised  to  ten 
thousand  dollars  a  year,  and  a  provision  for  a  retiring  pen- 
sion, to  be  continued  for  life  to  such  of  them  as  became  sev- 
enty years  old,  and  had  served  ten  years  on  the  Bench,  was 

But  it  is  always  very  difficult  indeed  to  get  salaries  raised, 
especially  the  salaries  of  Judges.  That  it  was  accomplished 
then  was  due  largely  to  the  sagacity  and  skill  of  Mr.  Arm- 
strong of  Pennsylvania.  He  was  a  very  sensible  and  excel- 
lent Eepresentative.  His  service,  like  that  of  many  of  the 
best  men  from  Pennsylvania,  was  too  short  for  the  public 
good.  I  had  very  little  to  do  with  it  myself,  except  that  I 
talked  the  matter  over  a  good  deal  with  Mr.  Armstrong,  who 
was  a  friend  of  mine,  and  heartily  supported  it. 

After  I  entered  the  Senate,  however,  I  undertook  to  get 
through  a  bill  for  raising  the  salaries  of  the  Judges  of  the 
United  States  District  Courts.  The  District  Judges  were 
expected  to  be  learned  lawyers  of  high  reputation  and  char- 
acter, and  large  experience.  Very  important  matters  in- 
deed are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  District  Courts. 
They  would  have  to  deal  with  prize  causes,  if  a  war  were 
to  break  out.  In  that  case  the  reputation  of  the  tribunals 
of  the  United  States  throughout  the  world  would  depend 
largely  on  them.  They  have  also  had  to  do  a  large  part  of 
the  work  of  the  Circuit  Courts,  especially  since  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals,  as  much  of  the 
time  of  the  Circuit  Judges  is  required  in  attendance  there. 

I  had  great  difficulty  in  getting  the  measure  through.  But 
at  last  I  was  successful  in  getting  the  salaries,  which  had 



ranged  from  $1,500  to  $4,000  in  different  districts  of  the 
country,  made  uniform  and  raised  to  $5,000  a  year. 

Later  I  made  an  attempt  to  have  the  salaries  of  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Courts  of  the  United  States  increased.  My 
desire  was  to  have  the  salary  of  the  Associate  Judges  fixed 
at  $15,000,  being  an  increase  of  fifty  per  cent.,  that  of  the 
Chief  Justice  to  be  $500  more.  I  met  with  great  difficulty, 
but  at  last,  in  the  winter  of  1903,  I  succeeded  in  getting 
through  a  measure,  which  I  had  previously  reported,  which 
increased  the  salary  of  the  Associate  Judges  to  $12,500,  and 
that  of  the  Chief  Justice  to  $13,000.  The  same  measure  in- 
creased the  salaries  of  the  District  Judges  from  $5,000  to 
$6,000,  and  that  of  the  Circuit  Judges  from  $6,000  to  $7,000 
a  year. 

The  salary  of  Senators  and  Eepresentatives  is  shamefully 
small.  This  is  a  great  injustice,  not  only  to  members  of 
the  two  Houses,  but  it  is  a  great  public  injury,  because  the 
country  cannot  command  the  service  of  able  men  in  the 
prime  of  life,  unless  they  have  already  acquired  large  for- 
tunes. It  cannot  be  expected  that  a  lawyer  making  from 
$25,000  to  $50,000  a  year,  or  a  man  engaged  in  business, 
whose  annual  income  perhaps  far  exceeds  that  amount,  will 
leave  it  for  $5,000  a  year.  In  that  way  he  is  compelled  not 
only  to  live  frugally  himself,  but  what  is  more  disagreeable 
still,  to  subject  his  household  to  live  in  the  humblest  style 
in  a  costly  and  fashionable  city,  into  which  wealthy  persons 
are  coming  from  all  parts  of  the  country. 

The  members  of  Congress  have  a  great  many  demands 
upon  them,  which  they  cannot  resist.  So  a  Senator  or  Rep- 
resentative with  $5,000  a  year,  living  in  Washington  a  part 
of  the  year  and  at  home  the  other  part,  cannot  maintain  his 
family  as  well  as  an  ordinary  mechanic  or  salaried  man  who 
gets  $2,500  or  $3,000  a  year,  and  spends  all  his  time  in  one 

The  English  aristocracy  understand  this  pretty  well. 
They  give  no  salary  at  all  to  the  members  of  their  House 
of  Commons.  The  result  is  that  the  poor  people,  the  work- 
ing people  and  people  in  ordinary  life,  cannot  get  persons 


to  represent  them,  from  their  own  class.  That  will  soon  be 
true  in  this  country,  if  we  do  not  make  a  change.  I  sup- 
pose nearly  every  member  of  either  House  of  Congress  will 
tell  you  in  private  that  he  thinks  the  salary  ought  to  be 
raised.  But  the  poor  men  will  not  vote  for  it,  because  they 
think  the  example  will  be  unpopular,  and  the  rich  men  do 
not  care  about  it. 


The  race  of  demagogues  we  have  always  with  us.  They 
have  existed  in  every  government  from  Cleon  and  the  Sau- 
sage-maker. They  command  votes  and  seem  to  delight  pop- 
ular and  legislative  assemblies.  But  they  rarely  get  very 
far  in  public  favor.  The  men  to  whom  the  American  people 
gives  its  respect,  and  whom  it  is  willing  to  trust  in  the  great 
places  of  power,  are  intelligent  men  of  propriety,  dignity 
and  sobriety. 

We  often  witness  and  perhaps  are  tempted  to  envj^  the 
applause  which  many  public  speakers  get  by  buffoonery,  by 
rough  wit,  by  coarse  personality,  by  appeal  to  vulgar  pas- 
sions. We  are  apt  to  think  that  grave  and  serious  reason- 
ings are  lost  on  the  audiences  that  receive  them,  half  asleep, 
as  if  listening  to  a  tedious  sermon,  and  who  come  to  life 
again  when  the  stump  speaker  takes  the  platform.  But  it 
will  be  a  great  mistake  to  think  that  the  American  people  do 
not  estimate  such  things  at  their  true  value.  When  they 
come  to  take  serious  action,  they  prefer  to  get  their  inspira- 
tion from  the  church  or  the  college  and  not  from  the  circus. 
Uncle  Sam  likes  to  be  amused.  But  Uncle  Sam  is  a  gentle- 
man. In  the  spring  of  1869,  when  I  first  took  my  seat  in 
Congress,  General  Butler  was  in  the  House.  He  was  per- 
haps as  widely  known  to  the  country  as  any  man  in  it  except 
President  Grant.  He  used  to  get  up  some  scene  of  quarrel 
or  buffoonery  nearly  every  morning  session.  His  name  was 
found  every  day  in  the  head-lines  of  the  newspapers.  I 
said  to  General  Banks  one  day  after  the  adjournment: 
"Don't  you  think  it  is  quite  likely  that  he  will  be  the  next 
President  of  the  United  States?"  "Never,"  said  General 
Banks,  in  his  somewhat  grandiloquent  fashion.     "Why," 



said  I,  "don't  you  see  that  the  papers  all  over  the  country 
are  full  of  him  every  morning?  People  seem  to  be  reading 
about  nobody  else.  Wherever  he  goes,  the  crowds  throng 
after  him.  Nobody  else  gets  such  applause,  not  even  Grant 
himself. ' ' 

"Mr.  Hoar,"  replied  General  Banks,  "when  I  came  down 
to  the  House  this  morning,  there  was  a  fight  between  two 
monkeys  on  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  There  was  an  enormous 
crowd,  shouting  and  laughing  and  cheering.  They  would 
have  paid  very  little  attention  to  you  or  me.  But  when  they 
come  to  elect  a  President  of  the  United  States,  they  won't 
take  either  monkey." 

The  men  who  possess  the  capacity  for  coarse  wit  and  rough 
repartee,  and  who  indulge  it,  seldom  get  very  far  in  public 
favor.  No  President  of  the  United  States  has  had  it.  No 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  has  had  it,  no  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Eepresentatives,  and,  with  scarcely  an  exception, 
no  eminent  Senator. 


In  August,  1890,  the  Pittsburg  Post,  a  Democratic  paper, 
made  a  savage  attack  on  me.  He  attributed  to  me  some 
very  foolish  remark  and  declared  that  I  lived  on  terra- 
pin and  champagne;  that  I  had  been  an  inveterate  office- 
seeker  all  my  life ;  and  that  I  had  never  done  a  stroke  of  use- 
ful work.  Commonly  it  is  wise  to  let  such  attacks  go  with- 
out notice.  To  notice  them  seriously  generally  does  more 
harm  than  good  to  the  party  attacked.  But  I  was  a  good 
deal  annoyed  by  the  attack,  and  thought  I  would  make  a 
good-natured  and  sportive  reply  to  it,  instead  of  taking  it 
seriously.  So  I  sent  the  editor  the  following  letter,  which 
was  copied  quite  extensively  throughout  the  country,  North 
and  South ;  and  I  believe  put  an  end,  for  the  rest  of  my  life, 
to  the  particular  charges  he  had  made: 

United  States  Senate, 
Washington,  D.  C,  Aug.  10,  1890. 
To  the  Editob  of  the  Pittsbtjeg  Post: 

My  Dear  Man:  Somebody  has  sent  me  a  copy  of  your 
paper  containing  an  article  of  which  you  do  me  the 
honor  to  make  me  the  subject.  What  can  have  put  such 
an  extravagant  yarn  into  the  head  of  so  amiable  and 
good-natured  a  fellow?  I  never  said  the  thing  which 
you  attribute  to  me  in  any  interview,  caucus  or  any- 
where else.  I  never  inherited  any  wealth  or  had  any. 
My  father  was  a  lawyer  in  very  large  practice  for  his 
day,  but  he  was  a  very  generous  and  liberal  man  and 
never  put  much  value  upon  money.  My  share  of  his  estate 
was  about  $10,500.  All  the  income-producing  property  I 
have  in  the  world,  or  ever  had,  yields  a  little  less  than  $1,800 
a  year ;  $800  of  that  is  from  a  life  estate  and  the  other  thou- 



sand  comes  from  stock  in  a  corporation  which  has  only  paid 
dividends  for  the  last  two  or  three  years,  and  which  I  am 
very  much  afraid  will  pay  no  dividdlSd,  or  much  smaller 
ones,  after  two  or  three  years  to  come.  With  that  exception 
the  house  where  I  live,  with  its  contents,  with  about  four 
acres  of  land,  constitute  my  whole  worldly  possessions,  ex- 
cept two  or  three  vacant  lots,  which  would  not  bring  me 
$5,000  all  told.  I  could  not  sell  them  now  for  enough  to  pay 
my  debts.  I  have  been  in  my  day  an  extravagant  collector 
of  books,  and  have  a  library  which  you  would  like  to  see  and 
which  I  would  like  to  show  you.  Now,  as  to  office-holding 
and  working.  I  think  there  are  few  men  on  this  continent 
who  have  put  so  much  hard  work  into  life  as  I  have.  I 
went  one  winter  to  the  Massachusetts  House  of  Eepresenta- 
tives,  when  I  was  twenty-five  years  old,  and  one  winter  to  the 
Massachusetts  Senate,  when  I  was  thirty  years  old.  The 
pay  was  two  dollars  a  day  at  that  time.  I  was  nominated  on 
both  occasions,  much  to  my  surprise,  and  on  both  occasions 
declined  a  renomination.  I  afterward  twice  refused  a  nom- 
ination for  Mayor  of  my  city,  have  twice  refused  a  seat  on 
the  Supreme  Bench  of  Massachusetts,  and  refused  for  years 
to  go  to  Congress  when  the  opportunity  was  in  my  power. 
I  was  at  last  broken  down  with  overwork,  and  went  to  Eu- 
rope for  my  health.  During  my  absence  the  arrangements 
were  made  for  my  nomination  to  Congress,  from  which,  when 
I  got  home,  I  could  not  well  escape.  The  result  is  I  have 
been  here  twenty  years  as  Eepresentative  and  Senator,  the 
whole  time  getting  a  little  poorer  year  by  year.  If  you 
think  I  have  not  made  a  good  one,  you  have  my  full  author- 
ity for  saying  anywhere  that  I  entirely  agree  with  you. 
During  all  this  time  I  have  never  been  able  to  hire  a  house 
in  Washington.  My  wife  and  I  have  experienced  the  vary- 
ing fortune  of  Washington  boarding  houses,  sometimes  very 
comfortable,  and  a  good  deal  of  the  time  living  in  a  fashion 
to  which  no  mechanic  earning  two  dollars  a  day  would  sub- 
ject his  household.  Your  "terrapin"  is  all  in  my  eye,  very 
little  in  my  mouth.  The  chief  carnal  luxury  of  my  life  is  in 
breakfasting  every  Sunday  morning  with  an  orthodox 
friend,  a  lady  who  has  a  rare  gift  for  making  fish-balls  and 


coffee.  You  unfortunate  and  benighted  Pennsylvanians  can 
never  know  the  exquisite  flavor  of  the  codfish,  salted,  made 
into  balls  and  eaten  on  a  Sunday  morning  by  a  person  whose 
theology  is  sound,  and  who  believes  in  all  the  five  points 
of  Calvinism.  I  am  myself  but  an  unworthy  heretic,  but  I 
am  of  Puritan  stock,  of  the  seventh  generation,  and  there  is 
vouchsafed  to  me,  also,  some  share  of  that  ecstasy  and  a  dim 
glimpse  of  that  beatific  vision.  Be  assured,  my  benighted 
Pennsylvania  friend,  that  in  that  hour  when  the  week  be- 
gins, all  the  terrapin  of  Philadelphia  or  Baltimore  and  all 
the  soft-shelled  crabs  of  the  Atlantic  shore  might  pull  at  my 
trousers  legs  and  thrust  themselves  on  my  notice  in  vain. 

I  am  faithfully, 

Geo.  F.  Hoae. 



Before  the  year  1897  I  had  become  very  much  alarmed  at 
the  prospect  of  the  total  extinction  of  our  song-birds.  The 
Bobolink  seemed  to  be  disappearing  from  the  fields  in  Mas- 
sachusetts, the  beautiful  Summer  Red  Bird  had  become  ex- 
tinct, and  the  Oriole  and  the  Scarlet  Tanager  had  almost 
disappeared.  Many  varieties  of  song-birds  which  were 
familiar  to  my  own  boyhood  were  unknown  to  my  children. 
The  same  thing  seems  to  be  going  on  in  other  countries. 
The  famous  Italian  novelist,  Ouida,  contributed  an  article 
in  the  North  American  Review  a  few  years  ago  in  which 
she  describes  the  extermination  of  the  Nightingale  in  Italy. 
The  Director  of  the  Central  Park,  in  one  of  his  Reports, 
stated  that  within  fifteen  or  twenty  years  the  song-birds  of 
the  State  of  New  York  had  diminished  forty-five  per  cent. 

One  afternoon  in  the  spring  of  1897,  Governor  Claflin 
called  on  me  at  my  Committee  Room  in  the  Capitol  and  told 
me  a  lady  had  just  visited  his  daughter  at  her  rooms  who 
had  on  her  head  eleven  egrets.  These  egrets  are  said  to 
come  from  the  female  White  Heron,  a  beautiful  bird  abound- 
ing in  Florida.  They  are  a  sort  of  bridal  ornament,  grow- 
ing out  on  the  head  of  the  female  at  pairing  time  and  perish- 
ing and  dropping  off  after  the  brood  is  reared.  So  the  orna- 
ment on  the  horrible  woman's  head  had  cost  the  lives  of 
eleven  of  these  beautiful  birds  and  very  likely  in  every  case 
the  lives  of  a  brood  of  young  ones. 

When  I  went  home  I  sat  down  after  dinner  and  wrote 
with  a  pencil  the  following  petition. 

"To  the  Great  and  General  Court  of  the  Commonwealth  of 

Massachusetts : 

"We,  the  song-birds  of  Massachusetts  and  their  playfel- 
lows, make  this  our  humble  petition: 



"We  know  more  about  you  than  you  think  we  do.  We 
know  how  good  you  are.  We  have  hopped  about  the  roofs 
and  looked  in  at  the  windows  of  the  houses  you  have  built 
for  poor  and  sick  and  hungry  people  and  little  lame  and 
deaf  and  blind  children.  We  have  built  our  nests  in  the 
trees  and  sung  many  a  song  as  we  flew  about  the  gardens 
and  parks  you  have  made  so  beautiful  for  your  own  chil- 
dren, especially  your  poor  children,  to  play  in. 

"Every  year  we  fly  a  great  way  over  the  country,  keeping 
all  the  time  where  the  sun  is  bright  and  warm ;  and  we  know 
that  whenever  you  do  anything,  other  people  all  over  the 
great  land  between  the  seas  and  the  great  lakes  find  it  out, 
and  pretty  soon  will  try  to  do  the  same  thing.  We  know; 
we  know.  We  are  Americans  just  as  you  are.  Some  of  us, 
like  some  of  you,  came  from  across  the  great  sea,  but  most 
of  the  birds  like  us  have  lived  here  a  long  while ;  and  birds 
like  us  welcomed  your  fathers  when  they  came  here  many 
years  ago.  Our  fathers  and  mothers  have  always  done  their 
best  to  please  your  fathers  and  mothers. 

"Now  we  have  a  sad  story  to  tell  you.  Thoughtless  or 
bad  people  are  trying  to  destroy  us.  They  kill  us  because 
our  feathers  are  beautiful.  Even  pretty  and  sweet  girls, 
who  we  should  think  would  be  our  best  friends,  kill  our 
brothers  and  children  so  that  they  may  wear  plumage  on 
their  hats.  Sometimes  people  kill  us  from  mere  wantonness. 
Cruel  boys  destroy  our  nests  and  steal  our  eggs  and  our 
young  ones.  People  with  guns  and  snares  lie  in  wait  to 
kill  us,  as  if  the  place  for  a  bird  were  not  in  the  sky,  alive, 
but  in  a  shop  window  or  under  a  glass  case.  If  this  goes 
on  much  longer,  all  your  song-birds  will  be  gone.  Already, 
we  are  told,  in  some  other  countries  that  used  to  be  full  of 
birds,  they  are  almost  gone.  Even  the  nightingales  are 
being  all  killed  in  Italy. 

"Now  we  humbly  pray  that  you  will  stop  all  this,  and  will 
save  us  from  this  sad  fate.  You  have  already  made  a  law 
that  no  one  shall  kill  a  harmless  song-bird  or  destroy  our 
nests  or  our  eggs.  Will  you  please  to  make  another  that  no 
one  shall  wear  our  feathers,  so  that  no  one  will  kill  us  to  get 
them?    We  want  them  all  ourselves.    Your  pretty  girls  are 


pretty  enough  without  them.    We  are  told  that  it  is  as  easy 
for  you  to  do  it  as  for  Blackbird  to  whistle. 

"If  you  will,  we  know  how  to  pay  you  a  hundred  times 
over.  We  will  teach  your  children  to  keep  themselves  clean 
and  neat.  We  will  show  them  how  to  live  together  in  peace 
and  love  and  to  agree  as  we  do  in  our  nests.  We  will  build 
pretty  houses  which  you  will  like  to  see.  We  will  play 
about  your  gardens  and  flower  beds,— ourselves  like  flowers 
on  wings,— without  any  cost  to  you.  We  will  destroy  the 
wicked  insects  and  worms  that  spoil  your  cherries  and  cur- 
rants and  plums  and  apples  and  roses.  We  will  give  you 
our  best  songs  and  make  the  spring  more  beautiful  and  the 
summer  sweeter  to  you.  Every  June  morning  when  you  go 
out  into  the  field,  Oriole  and  Blackbird  and  Bobolink  will 
fly  after  you  and  make  the  day  more  delightful  to  you ;  and 
when  you  go  home  tired  at  sundown.  Vesper  Sparrow  will 
tell  you  how  grateful  we  are.  When  you  sit  on  your  porch 
after  dark,  Fife  Bird  and  Hermit  Thrush  and  Wood  Thrush 
will  sing  to  you;  and  even  Whip-poor-will  will  cheer  up  a 
little.  We  know  where  we  are  safe.  In  a  little  while  all 
the  birds  will  come  to  live  in  Massachusetts  again,  and 
everybody  who  loves  music  will  like  to  make  a  summer  home 
with  you. ' ' 

I  thought  it  might,  perhaps,  strike  the  Legislature  of 
Massachusetts  and  the  public  more  impressively  than  a  sober 
argument.  The  whole  thing  took  only  fifteen  or  twenty  min- 
utes. The  petition  was  signed  by  all  the  song-birds  of 
Massachusetts,  and  illustrated  by  Miss  Ellen  Day  Hale  with 
the  portraits  of  the  signers.  It  was  presented  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts Senate  by  the  Honorable  A.  S.  Eoe,  Senator  from 
the  Worcester  District.  The  Legislature  acted  upon  it  and 
passed  the  following  Statute : 

"Whoever  has  in  his  possession  the  body  or  feathers  of 
any  bird  whose  taking  or  killing  is  prohibited  by  section 
four  of  chapter  two  hundred  and  seventy-six  of  the  acts  of 
the  year  eighteen  hundred  and  eighty-six,  or  wears  such 
feathers  for  the  purpose  of  dress  or  ornament,  shall  be  pun- 


islied  as  provided  in  said  section:  provided  that  this  act 
shall  not  be  construed  to  prohibit  persons  having  the  certifi- 
cate provided  for  in  said  sections  from  taking  or  killing  such 
birds ;  and  provided,  further,  that  this  act  shall  not  apply  to 
Natural  History  Associations,  or  to  the  proprietors  of  mu- 
seums, or  other  collections  for  scientific  purposes. 

"Approved  June  11,  1897." 

This  Statute  was  copied  in  several  other  States.  I  think 
the  petition  helped  a  good  deal  the  healthy  reaction  which, 
owing  largely  to  the  efforts  of  humane  societies  and  Natural 
History  Associations  and  especially  of  some  very  accom- 
plished ladies,  has  arrested  the  destruction  of  these  beauti- 
ful ornaments  of  our  woods  and  fields  and  gardens,  "our 
fellow  pilgrims  on  the  journey  of  life,"  who  have  so  much 
of  humanity  in  them  and  who,  like  us,  have  their  appointed 
tasks  set  to  them  by  the  great  Creator. 



One  very  unreasonable,  yet  very  natural  excitement  tas 
stirred  deeply  the  American  people  on  several  occasions  in 
our  history.  It  came  to  us  by  lawful  inheritance  from  our 
English  and  Puritan  ancestors.  That  is  the  bitter  and  al- 
most superstitious  dread  of  the  Catholics,  which  has  resulted 
more  than  once  in  riots  and  crimes,  and  more  than  once  in 
the  attempt  to  exclude  them  from  political  power  in  the 
country.  This  has  sometimes  taken  the  form  of  a  crusade 
against  all  foreigners.  But  religious  prejudice  against  the 
Catholics  has  been  its  chief  inspiration. 

I  just  said  that  this  feeling,  though  absolutely  unjustifi- 
able, was  yet  quite  natural,  and  that  it  came  to  us  by  lawful 
inheritance.  I  have  always  resisted  it  and  denounced  it  to 
the  utmost  of  my  power.  My  father  was  a  Unitarian.  I 
was  bred  in  that  most  liberal  of  all  liberal  faiths.  But  I 
have  believed  that  the  way  to  encounter  bigotry  is  by  liber- 
ality. If  any  man  try  to  deprive  you  of  your  absolute 
rights,  begin  to  defend  yourself  by  giving  him  his  own. 
Human  nature,  certainly  American  human  nature,  will 
never,  in  my  opinion,  long  hold  out  against  that  method  of 

Our  people,  so  far  as  they  are  of  English  descent,  learned 
from  their  fathers  the  stories  of  Catholic  persecution  and 
of  the  fires  of  Smithfield.  Fox's  "Book  of  Martyrs,"  one 
of  the  few  books  in  the  Puritan  libraries,  was,  even  down  to 
the  time  of  my  youth,  reverently  preserved  and  read  in  the 
New  England  farmhouses. 

So  it  was  believed  that  it  was  only  the  want  of  power 
that  prevented  the  Catholics  from  renewing  the  fires  of 
Smithfield  and  the  terrors  of  the  Inquisition.    It  was  be- 


THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  279 

lieved  that  tlie  infallibility  and  supremacy  of  the  Pope 
bound  the  Catholic  citizen  to  yield  unquestioning  obedience 
to  the  Catholic  clergy  in  matters  civil  and  political,  as  well 
as  spiritual.  There  was  a  natural  and  very  strong  dread 
of  the  Confessional. 

This  feeling  was  intensified  by  the  fact  of  which  it  was 
partly  the  cause,  that  when  the  Irish-Catholics  first  came 
over  they  voted  in  solid  body,  led  often  by  their  clergy,  for 
the  Democratic  Party,  which  was  in  the  minority  in  the  New 
England  States,  especially  in  Massachusetts.  England 
down  to  a  very  recent  time  disqualified  the  Catholics  from 
civil  office. 

Our  people  forgot  that  the  religious  persecution,  of  which 
they  cherished  the  bitter  memory,  was  the  result  of  the  spirit 
of  the  age,  and  not  of  one  form  of  religious  faith.  They 
forgot  that  the  English  Protestants  not  only  retaliated  on 
the  Catholics  when  they  got  into  power,  but  that  the  Bishops 
from  whose  fury,  as  John  Milton  said,  our  own  Pilgrim 
fathers  fled,  were  Protestant  Bishops  and  not  Catholic. 
They  forgot  the  eight  hundred  years  during  which  Ireland 
had  been  under  the  heel  of  England,  and  the  terrible  history 
so  well  told  by  that  most  English  of  Englishmen,  and  Prot- 
estant of  Protestants,  Lord  Macaulay. 

"The  Irish  Eoman  Catholics  were  permitted  to  live,  to 
be  fruitful,  to  replenish  the  earth ;  but  they  were  doomed  to 
be  what  the  Helots  were  in  Sparta,  what  the  Greeks  were 
under  the  Ottoman,  what  the  blacks  now  are  at  New  York. 
Every  man  of  the  subject  caste  was  strictly  excluded  from 
any  public  trust.  Take  what  path  he  might  in  life,  he  was 
crossed  at  every  step  by  some  vexatious  restriction.  It  was 
only  by  being  obscure  and  inactive,  that  he  could,  on  his 
native  soil,  be  safe.  If  he  aspired  to  be  powerful  and  hon- 
oured, he  must  begin  by  being  an  exile.  If  he  pined  for  mili- 
tary glory,  he  might  gain  a  cross  or  perhaps  a  Marshal's 
staff  in  the  armies  of  France  or  Austria.  If  his  vocation 
was  to  politics,  he  might  distinguish  himself  in  the  diplo- 
macy of  Italy  or  Spain.  But  at  home  he  was  a  mere  Gibe- 
onite,  a  hewer  of  wood  and  a  drawer  of  water.     The  statute 


book  of  Ireland  was  filled  with  enactments  which  furnish  to 
the  Eoman  Catholics  but  too  good  a  ground  for  recriminat- 
ing on  us  when  we  talk  of  the  barbarities  of  Bonner  and 
Gardiner;  and  the  harshness  of  those  odious  laws  was  ag- 
gravated by  a  more  odious  administration.  For,  bad  as  the 
legislators  were,  the  magistrates  were  worse  still.  In  those 
evil  times  originated  that  most  unhappy  hostility  between 
landlord  and  tenant,  which  is  one  of  the  peculiar  curses  of 
Ireland.  Oppression  and  turbulence  reciprocally  generated 
each  other.  The  combination  of  rustic  tyrants  was  resisted 
by  gangs  of  rustic  banditti.  Courts  of  law  and  juries  ex- 
isted only  for  the  benefit  of  the  dominant  sect.  Those 
priests  who  were  revered  by  millions  as  their  natural  ad- 
visers and  guardians,  as  the  only  authorised  expositors  of 
Christian  truth,  as  the  only  authorised  dispensers  of  the 
Christian  sacraments,  were  treated  by  the  squires  and  squi- 
reens of  the  ruling  faction  as  no  good-natured  man  would 
treat  the  vilest  beggar." 

When  I  came  into  political  life  shortly  after  1848,  I  found 
this  anti-Catholic  feeling  most  intense.  The  Catholics  in 
Massachusetts  were,  in  general,  in  a  very  humble  class. 
The  immigration,  which  had  well  begun  before  the  great 
Irish  Famine,  was  increased  very  much  by  that  terrible 
calamity.  The  Irishmen  were  glad  to  build  our  railroads 
at  sixty  cents  a  day,  dwelling  in  wretched  shanties,  and  liv- 
ing on  very  coarse  fare.  They  had  brought  with  them  the 
habit  of  drinking  whiskey,  comparatively  harmless  in  their 
native  climate— though  bad  enough  there— but  destructive 
in  New  England.  So  they  contributed  very  largely  to  the 
statistics  of  crime  and  disorder. 

Even  then  they  gave  an  example— from  which  all  man- 
kind might  take  a  lesson— of  many  admirable  qualities. 
They  had  a  most  pathetic  and  touching  affection  for  the 
Old  Country.  They  exhibited  an  incomparable  generosity 
toward  the  kindred  they  had  left  behind.  From  their  scanty 
earnings,  Edward  Everett,  a  high  authority,  estimates  that 
there  were  sent  twenty  millions  of  dollars  in  four  years  to 
their  parents  and  kindred. 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  281 

There  was  some  jealousy  on  the  part  of  our  working 
people,  especially  the  men  and  women  employed  in  large 
manufacturing  establishments,  lest  the  Irish,  by  working 
at  cheaper  wages,  would  drive  them  out  of  employment. 
But  the  Irishman  soon  learned  to  demand  all  the  wages  he 
could  get.  The  accession  of  the  Irish  laborer  increased 
largely  the  productive  forces  of  the  State.  So  there  was 
more  wealth  created,  of  which  the  better  educated  and 
shrewder  Yankee  got  the  larger  share.  By  the  bringing  in 
of  a  lower  class  of  labor  he  was  elevated  to  a  higher  place, 
but  never  driven  out  of  work.  The  prejudice  of  which  I 
have  spoken  showed  itself  in  some  terrible  Protestant  riots 
in  New  Orleans  and  in  Baltimore,  and  in  the  burning  of  the 
Catholic  Convent  at  Charlestown. 

There  was  also  a  strong  feeling  that  the  compact  body  of 
Catholics,  always  voting  for  one  political  party  was  a  dan- 
ger to  the  public  security.  Of  course  this  feeling  mani- 
fested itself  in  the  Whig  Party,  for  whose  adversary  the 
solid  Irish- Catholic  vote  was  cast.  As  early  as  1844,  after 
the  defeat  of  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Webster  made  a  suggestion— 
I  do  not  know  where  it  is  recorded  now,  but  I  was  in- 
formed of  it  on  good  authority  at  about  the  time  he  made 
it — that  there  must  be  some  public  combination  with  a 
view  to  resist  the  influence  of  our  foreign  element  in  our 

But  there  was  no  political  movement  on  any  considerable 
scale  until  1854.  In  that  year  there  was  a  very  dangerous 
crusade  which  came  very  near  National  success,  and  which 
got  control  of  several  States. 

In  the  fall  of  1857  the  Eepublican  Party  elected  its  first 
Governor.  The  slavery  question  was  still  very  prominent, 
and  the  people  were  deeply  stirred  by  the  attempt  to  repeal 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  So  in  that  year,  under  the  lead- 
ership of  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  Gardner,  the  Know-Nothing 
Governor,  was  defeated,  and  from  that  time  the  strength  of 
Know-Nothingism  was  at  an  end.  I  was  elected  to  the  Sen- 
ate in  the  fall  of  1856  as  the  Eepublican  candidate  from  the 
county  of  Worcester  over  the  Know-Nothing  and  Demo- 
cratic candidates. 


It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  of  the  men  known  to  join  the 
Know-Nothing  Party,  no  man,  unless  he  were  exceedingly 
young  and  obscure  when  he  did  it,  ever  maintained  or  re- 
gained the  public  confidence  afterward,  with  the  exception 
of  Henry  Wilson,  Anson  Burlingame  and  Nathaniel  P. 
Banks.  These  men  all  left  it  after  the  first  year.  Wilson 
and  Burlingame  denounced  it  with  all  the  vigor  at  their 
command,  and  Banks  led  the  forces  of  the  Republican  Party 
to  its  overthrow. 

I  ought  to  say,  however,  of  this  movement  and  of  the 
A.  P.  A.  movement,  as  it  is  called,  of  which  I  am  now  to 
speak,  that  I  do  not  think  the  leaders  in  general  shared  the 
bitter  and  proscriptive  feeling  to  which  they  appealed.  The 
secret  organization,  founded  on  religious  prejudice,  or  on 
race  prejudice,  is  a  good  instrument  to  advance  the  political 
fortunes  of  men  who  could  not  gain  advancement  in  an 
established  political  organization.  So  a  great  many  men 
are  active  and  busy  in  such  organizations,  who  would  be 
equally  active  and  busy  in  movements  founded  on  precisely 
the  opposite  doctrines,  if  they  could  as  well  find  their  ad- 
vancement in  them.  Yet,  as  I  have  said,  the  prejudice  which 
lay  at  the  bottom  of  this  movement  was  very  powerful,  very 
sincere,  and  not  unnatural. 

Secret  societies  were  formed  all  over  the  country.  It 
seemed  not  unlikely  that  the  surprise  of  1854  would  be  re- 
peated, and  that  the  great  Eepublican  party,  which  had  done 
so  much  for  civil  liberty,  would  either  be  broken  to  pieces 
or  would  be  brought  to  take  an  attitude  totally  inconsistent 
with  religious  liberty. 

The  organization,  calling  itself  the  American  Protective 
Association,  but  known  popularly  as  the  A.  P.  A.,  had  its 
branches  all  over  the  North.  Its  members  met  in  secret, 
selected  their  candidates  in  secret — generally  excluding  all 
men  who  were  not  known  to  sympathize  with  them — and 
then  attended  the  Eepublican  caucuses  to  support  candidates 
in  whose  selection  members  of  that  political  party  who  were 
not  in  their  secret  councils  had  no  share.  Ambitious  candi- 
dates for  office  did  not  like  to  encounter  such  a  powerful 
enmity.    They  in  many  cases  temporized  or  coquetted  with 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  283 

the  A.  P.  A.,  if  they  did  not  profess  to  approve  its  doctrine. 
So  far  as  I  know,  no  prominent  Republican  in  any  part  of 
the  country  put  himself  publicly  on  record  as  attacking  this 
vicious  brotherhood.  Many  men  who  did  not  agree  with 
it  were,  doubtless,  so  strong  in  the  public  esteem  that  they 
were  not  attacked. 

That  was  the  condition  of  things  when,  in  the  early  sum- 
mer of  1895,  I  delivered  an  address  at  the  opening  of  the 
Summer  School  of  Clark  University  in  which  I  spoke 
briefly,  but  in  very  strong  terms,  in  condemnation  of  the 
secrecy  and  of  the  proscriptive  principles  of  this  political 
organization.  I  declared:  "I  have  no  patience  or  tolerance 
with  the  spirit  which  would  excite  religious  strife.  It  is  as 
much  out  of  place  as  the  witchcraft  delusion  or  the  fires  of 
Smithfield. ' '  I  added :  ' '  This  Nation  is  a  composite.  It  is 
made  up  of  many  streams,  of  the  twisting  and  winding  of 
many  bands.  The  quality,  hope  and  destiny  of  our  land 
is  expressed  in  the  phrase  of  our  Fathers,  'E  Pluribus 
Unum' — of  many,  one— of  many  States,  one  Nation— of 
many  races,  one  people— of  many  creeds,  one  faith— of  many 
bended  knees,  one  family  of  God."  A  little  later  I  went 
with  the  Massachusetts  Club,  of  which  I  was  a  member,  to  an 
outing  at  Newport.  There,  briefly  but  still  more  emphati- 
cally, I  called  upon  the  people  not  to  revive  the  bitter  memo- 
ries of  ancient,  social  and  religious  strife. 

These  two  speeches  excited  the  indignation  of  the  leaders 
of  this  organization.  A  gentleman  named  Evans,  I  believe 
born  in  England,  took  up  the  cudgels.  He  was  supported 
by  many  worthy  clergymen  and  a  good  many  newspapers 
which  had  been  established  to  support  the  doctrine  of  the 
A.  P.  A.  organization.  Mr.  Evans,  if  I  am  right  in  my 
memory,  claimed  that  he  was  not  a  member  of  the  organiza- 
tion. IBut  he  stood  up  for  it  stanchly  in  two  letters  to  me, 
in  which  he  very  severely  denounced  what  I  had  said,  and 
pointed  out  the  wicked  behavior  of  some  Catholic  priests  to 
whom  he  referred.  He  said  he  had  looked  up  to  me  as  he 
formerly  did  to  Charles  Sumner  and  William  H.  Seward; 
that  my  course  would  tend  as  absolutely  to  the  breaking  up 
of  the  Eepublican  Party  as  Daniel  Webster's  speech  did  to 


the  breaking  up  of  the  old  Whig  Party,  and  that  I  had  rung 
my  own  death  knell;  that  the  one  mistake  Wesley  made 
when  he  called  slavery  "the  sum  of  all  villainies"  was  that 
he  did  not  except  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  added 
that  there  were  at  least  three  million  members  of  these  pa- 
triotic orders,  constituting  at  least  three  fifths  of  the  Eepub- 
lican  Party,  and  that  their  membership  was  being  added  to 
daily.  Mr.  Evans  also  said,  what  was  absolutely  without 
foundation,  that  I  had  said,  "We  need  a  Father  Confessor." 
That  gave  me  my  opportunity.  I  answered  with  the  fol- 
lowing letter  in  which  I  stated  my  own  doctrine  as  vigor- 
ously and  clearly  as  I  knew  how. 

WOECESTEB,  Aug.  5,  1895. 
T.  C.  Evans,  Esq.  : 

My  Dear  Sir — One  of  the  great  evils,  though  by  no  means 
the  greatest  evil  of  secret  political  societies,  is  that  foolish 
and  extravagant  statements  about  men  who  don't  agree 
with  them  get  circulated  without  opportunity  for  contradic- 
tion or  explanation.  You  seem  to  be  a  well-meaning  and 
intelligent  man ;  yet  I  am  amazed  that  any  well-meaning  and 
intelligent  man  should  believe  such  stuff  as  you  repeat  in 
your  letter  of  August  3.  I  never  said,  thought  or  dreamed 
what  you  impute  to  me.  I  don't  believe  there  ever  was  any 
report  in  the  Worcester  Telegram  to  that  effect.  Certainly 
there  is  none  in  the  report  of  what  I  said  in  the  summer 
school  at  Clark  University  the  morning  after,  and  there  is  no 
such  statement  in  any  of  the  other  Worcester  newspapers. 
I  never  anywhere  expressed  the  idea  that  there  should  be  a 
confessional  or  that  there  was  any  need  of  a  Father  Con- 
fessor, or  that  I  wanted  to  see  something  in  our  Protestant 
churches  like  the  Father  Confessor  in  the  Catholic.  The 
whole  thing  is  a  miserable  lie  and  invention  made  out  of 
whole  cloth.  The  language,  which  you  quote,  about  an 
attempt  to  recall  on  one  side,  "the  cruelties  of  the  Catholic 
Church  and  frighten  our  women  and  children  with  horrid 
hobgoblins,"  is  not  my  language.  That  does  appear  in 
the  Telegram.  But  it  is  the  reporter's  statement  of  what  he 
understood  my  idea  to  be  in  his  own  language.    What  I  said 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  285 

was :  "We  are  confronted  with  a  public  danger  which  comes 
from  an  attempt  to  rouse  the  old  feelings  of  the  dark  ages, 
and  which  ought  to  have  ended  with  them,  between  men 
who  have  different  forms  of  faith.  It  is  an  attempt  to 
recall  on  one  side  the  cruelties  of  the  Catholic  Church  and 
to  frighten  old  women  of  both  sexes,  and,  on  the  other  side, 
to  band  the  men  of  the  Catholic  Church  together  for  polit- 
ical action.     Both  these  attempts  will  fail." 

There  is  no  more  zealous  believer  in  the  principles  of  the 
New  England  Puritans,  and  no  more  zealous  advocate  of 
them,  than  I  am.  There  is  not  a  man  in  Massachusetts 
who  has  more  at  heart  the  welfare  and  perpetuity  of  our 
system  of  free  common  schools  than  I  have.  I  was  the  first 
person,  so  far  as  I  know,  who  called  public  attention  to  the 
fact  that  they  were  in  danger,  in  any  formal  way.  I  drew 
and  had  put  into  the  platform  of  the  Republican  State  Con- 
vention the  following  resolution:  "The  Republican  Party 
ever  has  maintained  and  ever  will  maintain  and  defend, 
the  common  schools  of  Massachusetts  as  the  very  citadel  of 
their  liberties  and  the  source  of  her  glory,  greatness  and 
happiness.  They  shall  be  kept  open  to  all  the  children  and 
free  from  all  partisan  and  sectarian  control. ' ' 

This  doctrine  I  stand  by.  And  I  stand  by  the  further 
doctrine,  as  I  stated  at  length  in  my  address  at  Clark  Univer- 
sity, that  the  whole  resources  of  the  Commonwealth  are 
pledged  to  their  support,  and  that  that  is  the  bottom  mort- 
gage on  every  dollar  of  our  property,  and  that  no  person 
can  escape  or  be  allowed  to  escape  that  responsibility.  The 
difference  between  you  and  me  is  a  difference  of  method. 
I  want  to  get  the  700,000  Catholics  in  Massachusetts  on  our 
side.  I  want  them  to  send  their  children  to  the  public 
schools,  to  pay  their  share  of  the  cost,  and  when  their  young 
men  and  women  are  suitable,  are  intelligent,  liberal  persons, 
attached  to  the  school  system,  I  want  some  of  them  to  be 
employed  as  teachers.  I  don't  wish  to  exclude  them  from 
my  political  support  when  they  are  Republicans  and  agree 
with  me  in  other  matters,  because  of  their  religious  faith. 
Nor  do  I  wish  to  exclude  them  from  being  public  school 
teachers,  if  they  will  keep  their  particular  religious  tenets 


out  of  their  instruction,  because  of  their  religious  faith,  any 
more  than  I  would  have  excluded  Phil  Sheridan  from  his 
office  in  the  army,  or  would  have  refused  to  support  him  for 
any  public  office,  if  he  had  been  nominated  for  it.  Further, 
I  want  to  state  and  advocate  my  opinions  in  the  face  of  day ; 
and  you  may  be  sure  that  I  shall  do  this  without  flinching 
before  anybody's  threats  or  anybody's  displeasure  or  indig- 
nation. You,  on  the  other  hand,  I  understand,  want  to  go 
into  a  cellar  to  declare  your  principles.  You  want  to  join 
an  association  whose  members  are  ashamed  to  confess  they 
belong  to  it;  many  of  whom,  without  apparently  forfeiting 
the  respect  of  their  fellows,  lie  about  their  membership  in  it 
when  they  are  asked  about  it.  You  want  to  mass  together 
the  whole  Catholic  population  of  Massachusetts  to  the  sup- 
port of  their  extreme  and  wrong-headed  priests,  if  any  such 
can  be  found. 

The  difference  between  us  is  a  difference  of  methods  in 
accomplishing  the  same  result.  I  think  your  method  would 
overthrow  the  common  school  system,  would  overthrow  the 
Eepublican  Party,  and  would  end  by  massing  together  all 
the  Catholic  voters,  as  proscription  always  does  mass  men 
together,  to  increase  and  strengthen  that  political  power 
which  you  profess  so  much  to  dread. 

"When  O'Neill,  the  young  Catholic  soldier  of  Worcester, 
lay  dying,  he  said:  "Write  to  my  dear  mother  and  tell  her 
I  die  for  my  country.  I  wish  I  had  two  lives  to  give.  Let 
the  Union  flag  be  wrapped  about  me  and  a  fold  of  it  laid 
under  my  head."  I  feel  proud  that  God  gave  me  such  a 
man  to  be  my  countryman  and  townsman.  I  have  very  little 
respect  for  the  Americanism  that  is  not  moved  and  stirred 
by  such  a  story.  If  O'Neill  had  left  a  daughter  who  had 
her  father's  spirit,  I  would  be  willing  to  trust  my  child  or 
grandchild  to  her  instruction  in  secular  education  in  the  pub- 
lic school,  even  if  the  father  had  kissed  with  his  last  breath 
the  cross  on  which  the  Saviour  died,  or  even  if  the  parting 
soul  had  received  comfort  from  the  lips  of  Thomas  Conaty 
or  John  Power  or  John  Ireland  or  Archbishop  Williams. 

When  John  Boyle  O'Beilly,  the  Catholic  poet,  sang  the 
praises  of  the  Pilgrims  at  Plymouth,  in  that  noblest  of  odes. 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  287 

when  lie  quoted  in  Ms  preface  from  William  Bradford  and 
John  Eobinson  and  Robert  Cushman,  I  was  glad  to  hear 
what  he  said,  especially  when  he  quoted  from  the  lips  of  the 
clergyman  Eobinson:  "I  charge  you  before  G-od  that  you 
follow  me  no  further  than  you  have  seen  me  follow  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  If  God  reveal  anything  to  you  by  any  other 
instrument  of  His,  be  as  ready  to  receive  it  as  ever  you 
were  to  receive  any  truth  by  my  ministry,  for  I  am  verily 
persuaded,  I  am  very  confident,  the  Lord  hath  more  truths 
yet  to  break  forth  out  of  His  Holy  Word. ' '  I  liked  what  he 
said.  If  I  understand  your  former  letter  correctly,  you 
didn't.  There  is  where  we  differ.  When  John  Boyle 
O'Reilly  said,  declaring  the  very  spirit  of  New  England 
Puritanism,  and  speaking  of  religious  faith,  ' '  the  one  sacred 
revolution  is  change  of  mind,"  when  he  spoke  these  noble 
lines : 

So  held  they  firm,  the  Fathers  aye  to  be, 
Prom  Home  to  Holland,  Holland  to  the  sea- 
Pilgrims  for  manhood,  in  their  little  ship, 
Hope  in  each  heart,  and  prayer  on  every  lip. 
Apart  from  all— unique,  unworldly,  true, 
Selected  grain  to  sow  the  earth  anew ; 
A  witmowed  part— a  saving  remnant  they; 
Dreamers  who  work ;  adventurers  who  pray ! 
We  know  them  by  the  exile  that  was  theirs ; 
Their  justice,  faith  and  fortitude  attest. 

When  he  further  said: 

On  the  wintry  main 
God  flings  their  lives  as  farmers  scatter  grain. 
His  breath  propels  the  winged  seed  afloat ; 
His  tempests  swerve  to  spare  the  fragile  boat; 
Here  on  this  rock  and  on  this  sterile  soil. 
Began  the  kingdom,  not  of  kings,  but  men; 
Began  the  making  of  the  world  again, 
Their  primal  code  of  liberty,  their  rules 
Of  civil  right;    their  churches,  courts  and  schools; 
Their  freedom's  very  secret  here  laid  down— 
The  spring  of  government  is  the  little  town ! 


On  their  strong  lines,  we  base  our  social  health — 

The  man — the  home — the  town— the  Commonwealth ! 

Their  saintly  Robinson  was  left  behind 

To  teach  by  gentle  memory ;  to  shame 

The  bigot  spirit  and  the  word  of  flame ; 

To  write  dear  mercy  in  the  Pilgrim's  law; 

To  lead  to  that  wide  faith  his  soul  foresaw— 

I  liked  wliat  he  said.  If  I  understand  your  former  letter, 
you  didn't.  You  don't  want  a  man  who  differs  from  you 
saying  or  thinking  such  things.  I  want  the  whole  700,000 
Catholics  of  Massachusetts  to  believe  what  John  Boyle 
O'Eeilly  believed,  and  to  love  and  reverence  the  Puritan 
founders  of  Massachusetts  as  he  did,  and  I  think  my  way  is 
the  way  to  make  them  do  it.  You  don't,  if  I  understand  you. 
You  think  the  way  to  make  good  citizens  and  good  men  of 
them  and  to  attract  them  to  Protestantism,  is  to  exclude 
them,  their  sons  and  daughters,  from  all  public  employment, 
and  to  go  yourself  into  a  dark  cellar  and  curse  at  them 
through  the  gratings  of  the  windows. 

I  stated  my  religious  faith  and  my  ideas  of  the  relation 
of  our  religious  denominations  to  each  other,  in  an  address 
I  delivered  at  Saratoga  last  year,  of  which  I  send  you  a 
copy,  and  which  I  hope,  as  you  have  kindly  volunteered  to 
send  me  so  much  of  your  opinion,  you  may  perhaps  be  will- 
ing to  read.  It  doesn't  become  me  to  say  anything  about  it 
myself.  I  am  deeply  sensible  of  its  imperfections.  It  fails 
to  do  justice  to  what  is  in  my  own  heart.  But  perhaps  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say  that  within  a  few  weeks  after  it  was 
delivered,  an  eminent  Catholic  clergyman  sent  me  a  message 
expressing  his  delight  in  it.  The  most  famous  Episcopal 
Bishop  in  the  country  said  to  a  friend  of  mine  that  he  had 
read  it  with  great  pleasure  and  that  it  sounded  to  him  like 
the  old  times.  A  Baptist  minister,  bearing  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  names  in  the  country,  wrote  me  a  letter,  in 
which  he  said,  as  he  read  it,  "At  every  sentence,  I  said  to 
myself.  Amen,  Amen."  An  eminent  Orthodox  minister. 
Doctor  of  Divinity,  read  it  aloud  to  his  parish,  in  full,  instead 
of  his  Sunday's  sermon.     And  a  very  excellent  and  able 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTEOVERSY  289 

Methodist  minister  wrote  to  me  and  said,  "If  that  is  Unita- 
rianism,  I  am  afraid  I  am  a  Unitarian."  I  think  the  time 
has  come  to  throw  down  the  walls  between  Christians  and 
not  to  build  new  ones.  I  think  the  time  has  come  to  incul- 
cate harmony  and  good  will  between  all  American  citizens, 
especially  between  all  citizens  of  the  old  Commonwealth  of 

You  quote  some  expressions  which  you  attribute  to  Cath- 
olic clergymen.  If  you  don't  get  any  nearer  right  in  quoting 
them  than  you  do  in  quoting  me,  I  don't  believe  that  they 
ever  said  any  such  thing.  If  they  have,  they  never  will  per- 
suade any  considerable  number  of  Catholic  laity  in  this 
country,  in  this  nineteenth  century,  to  follow  them.  You  may 
perhaps  induce  the  Catholic  young  men  and  women  of  Mas- 
sachusetts to  believe  there  is  something  in  what  those  clergy- 
men say.     They  never  will  succeed  in  doing  it  themselves. 

I  don't  think  you  will  succeed  in  getting  any  considerable 
number  of  the  people  of  this  country,  who  are  able  to  read 
and  write,  or  to  count  ten  on  their  fingers,  to  believe  that,  as 
I  am  entering  my  seventieth  year,  I  am  actuated  by  any  per- 
sonal ambition,  in  the  counsel  which  I  give  my  fellow  citi- 
zens. I  don't  think  you  will  get  them  to  believe  that,  if  I 
were  so  actuated,  I  should  begin  by  saying  anything  which 
would  estrange  a  considerable  number  of  the  Protestant 
Eepublican  citizens  of  Massachusetts.  I  don't  think  you 
will  convince  them  that  I  am  indifferent  to  the  good  will  of 
so  large  a  portion  of  the  American  people  as  are  said  to  be 
enlisted  in  the  ranks  of  the  secret  society  to  which  you  refer. 
If  you  know  as  little  of  your  Catholic  fellow  citizens  as  you 
know  of  me,  you  have  a  good  deal  as  yet  to  learn  of  the  sub- 
ject of  which  you  are  speaking. 

On  the  other  hand,  you  may  be  quite  sure  I  should  be 
unwilling  to  do  injustice  to  any  of  my  fellow  citizens.  They 
will  hardly  need  be  assured  that  I  would  not  lightly  or  unnec- 
essarily incur  their  disapprobation.  But  you  may  perhaps 
think  it  pardonable  that  I  should  not  be  thoroughly  informed 
as  to  the  principles,  motives  or  conduct  of  a  secret  society. 
As  you  have  undertaken  the  duty  of  giving  me  information, 
will  you  kindly  answer  for  me  the  following  questions : 



1st.  Is  the  organization  to  which  you  refer  a  secret  organ- 
ization? Are  its  discussions  in  the  face  of  day?  Do  the 
persons  whose  political  errors  they  especially  oppose  have 
an  opportunity  to  know  their  purposes  and  to  be  convinced 
by  their  arguments?  If  the  organization  be  in  any  respect 
secret,  why  is  it  deemed  necessary  to  maintain  such  secrecy 
in  the  United  States  of  America  and  at  the  close  of  the  nine- 
teenth century? 

2d.  Is  it  the  custom  of  many  persons  who  belong  to  it  to 
deny,  when  inquired  of,  that  they  are  members  of  such  an 
association?  And  if  this  be  true,  does  such  a  falsehood  cost 
them  the  respect  and  friendship  of  their  associates  or  dimin- 
ish their  influence  in  the  order? 

3d.  Do  members  of  the  association,  after  joining  it,  retain 
their  membership  in  other  political  parties?  Do  they 
agree  together  upon  candidates  for  office  or  delegates 
to  conventions  to  nominate  officers  and  then  go  into  their 
party  caucuses  to  support  such  delegates  agreed  upon  in 
secret,  without  consultation  with  their  political  brethren? 
If  that  be  true,  does  it  seem  to  you  that  that  course  is 

4th.  Do  you  understand  that  any  considerable  number  of 
Catholic  laymen,  in  this  country,  accept  the  interpretation 
which  you  put  upon  the  fifteen  articles  which  you  quote  as 
principles  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church?  Is  it  not  true 
that  that  interpretation  is  absolutely  rejected  by  the  Catholic 
laity  in  general,  and  that  they  affirm  for  themselves  as  abso- 
lute independence  of  the  Pope  or  of  the  clergy  in  all  secular 
matters  as  you  or  I  claim  for  ourselves  in  regard  to  Protes- 
tant clergymen? 

5th.  Are  not  Italy  and  France,  two  Catholic  countries, 
to-day  as  absolutely  free  from  any  temporal  power  or  in- 
fluence of  the  Pope  or  the  Catholic  clergy  as  is  Massachu- 

6th.  I  have  had  sent  me  a  little  leaflet,  purporting  to  be 
the  principles  of  the  American  Protective  Association, 
which  you  doubtless  have  seen.  When  you  say,  in  your 
third  article,  that  the  American  Protective  Association  is 
"opposed  to  the  holding  of  offices  in  the  National,  State  or 

THE    A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  291 

municipal  Government,  by  any  subject  or  supporter  of  such 
ecclesiastical  power,"  and  in  your  fifth  article,  that  you 
"protest  against  the  employment  of  the  subjects  of  any 
un-American  ecclesiastical  power  as  officers  or  teachers  of 
our  public  schools,"  do  you  mean,  or  no,  that  no  Catholic 
shall  hold  such  National  or  State  or  municipal  office,  and  that 
no  Catholic  shall  be  a  teacher  in  a  public  school?  You  don't 
answer  this  question  by  quoting  the  language  of  church 
officials  in  by-gone  days  or  the  intemperate  language  of 
some  priests  in  recent  times.  It  is  a  practical  question.  Do 
you  or  do  you  not  mean  to  exclude  from  such  office  and  from 
such  employment  as  teachers  the  bulk  of  the  Catholic  popu- 
lation of  Massachusetts'? 

7th.  Is  it  your  opinion  that  General  Philip  H.  Sheridan, 
were  he  living,  would  be  unfit  to  hold  civil  or  military  office 
in  this  country?  Or  that  his  daughter,  if  she  entertained 
the  religious  belief  of  her  father,  should  be  disqualified  from 
being  a  teacher  in  a  public  school"? 

I  have  no  pride  of  opinion.  I  shall  be  very  glad  to  revise 
any  opinion  of  mine  and,  as  you  state  it,  I  shall  be  very 
glad  to  "know  better  in  the  future,"  if  you  will  kindly 
enlighten  me. 

You  and  I,  as  I  have  said,  have  the  same  object  at  heart. 
"We  desire,  above  all  things,  the  maintenance  of  the  principles 
of  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  and  above  all  other  instrumen- 
talities to  that  end,  the  maintenance  of  our  common  school 
system,  at  the  public  charge,  open  to  all  the  children  and 
free  from  partisan  or  sectarian  control.  If  you  and  I  differ, 
it  is  only  as  to  what  is  the  best  means  of  accomplishing  these 
ends.  If  you  think  that  they  are  best  accomplished  by  secret 
societies,  by  hiding  from  the  face  of  day,  by  men  who  will 
not  acknowledge  what  they  are  doing,  and  by  refusing  public 
employment  to  men  and  women  who  think  on  these  subjects 
exactly  as  we  do,  but  whose  religious  faith  differs  from  ours, 
then  I  don't  agree  with  you.  I  think  your  method  will  result 
in  driving  and  compacting  together,  in  solid  mass,  persons 
who  will  soon  number  nearly  or  quite  fifty  per  cent,  of  the 
voting  population  of  Massachusetts.  Nothing  strengthens 
men,  nothing  makes  them  so  hard  to  hear  reason,  nothing  so 


drives  tliem  to  extremity  in  opinion  or  in  action  as  persecu- 
tion or  proscription. 

On  the  other  hand,  my  method  is  the  method  of  absolute 
freedom  and  of  pure  reason.  The  Catholic  boy,  who  has 
grown  up  in  our  common  schools,  who  has  formed  his 
youthful  friendships  with  his  Protestant  classmates,  whose 
daughter  or  sister,  as  he  grows  older,  is  employed  as  a 
teacher,  will  very  soon  be  as  attached  to  our  common  school 
system  as  we  are  ourselves.  He  will  be  required,  as  he  gets 
property,  to  pay  his  share  of  its  support.  He  cannot  ask 
to  be  exempt  from  a  tax  to  which  all  Protestants  cheerfully 
submit,  whether  their  own  children  be  in  the  schools  or  not, 
and  he  will  not  easily  be  made  to  give  his  consent  to  paying 
twice.  The  American  Spirit,  the  Spirit  of  the  age,  the 
Spirit  of  Liberty,  the  Spirit  of  Equality,  especially  what 
Roger  Williams  called  "Soul  Liberty"  is  able  to  maintain 
herself  in  a  fair  field  and  in  a  free  contest  against  all  comers. 
Do  not  compel  her  to  fight  in  a  cellar.  Do  not  compel  her 
to  breathe  the  damp,  malarial  atmosphere  of  dark  places. 
Especially  let  no  member  of  the  Eepublican  Party,  the  last 
child  of  freedom,  lend  his  aid  to  such  an  effort.  The  atmos- 
phere of  the  Republic  is  the  air  of  the  mountain  top  and  the 
sunlight  and  the  open  field.  Her  emblem  is  the  eagle  and 
not  the  bat. 

I  am  faithfully  yours, 

Gbokge  F.  Hoak. 

After  the  publication  of  the  foregoing  letter,  I  received 
one  from  Theodore  Roosevelt,  who  was  holding  a  high  office 
in  New  York  City,  then  at  the  beginning  of  his  illustrious 
political  career.  He  expressed  his  hearty  sympathy  and 
approval,  and  offered  to  lay  aside  everything  else  and  come 
to  my  aid,  if  I  so  desired.  I  need  not  say  I  took  special 
pleasure  in  this  letter,  which  disclosed  so  unmistakably  the 
honest  and  brave  heart  of  the  man,  who  was  then  in  his 
difficult  office  fighting  wild  beasts  at  Ephesus.  But  I  did 
not  need  to  accept  his  offer. 

I  was  angrily  denounced.  But  the  leading  Republican 
papers  soon  came  to  my  support.     The  Republican  political 

THE   A.  P.  A.  CONTROVERSY  293 

leaders  generally,  though,  quietly,  approved  what  I  had  said 
and  done.  The  generous  and  just  heart  of  the  American 
people  was  stirred,  and  the  result  was  that  the  movement, 
inspired  by  bigotry  and  intolerance,  lost  its  force,  languished 
for  a  year  or  two,  and  was  little  heard  of  afterward. 

I  dare  say  that  the  same  causes  which  excited  it  may  pro- 
voke a  similar  movement  more  than  once  hereafter.  But  I 
believe  it  will  fail  as  that  failed. 

I  know  how  prone  men  are,  especially  old  men,  in  telling 
the  story  of  their  lives,  to  over-estimate  the  value  and  the 
consequence  of  the  things  in  which  they  have  taken  a  part. 
But  I  think  I  am  not  extravagant  in  claiming  that  the  over- 
throw of  this  dangerous  delusion  was  of  great  value  not 
only  to  the  Eepublican  Party,  but  to  the  cause  of  religious 
liberty  in  this  coimtry,  and  that  the  success  of  the  A.  P.  A. 
would  have  been  the  destruction  of  both. 



I  MAY  as  well  put  on  record  here  a  matter  which  I  suppose 
has  never  heen  made  puhlic.  When  in  President  Hayes's 
time  Mr.  Welsh  resigned  the  English  Mission,  Mr.  Lowell, 
then  in  Spain,  was  strongly  recommended  for  the  place. 
Mr.  Evarts,  Secretary  of  State,  was  quite  unwilling  to  have 
Mr.  Lowell  appointed.  I  fancied  that  Mr.  Evarts  might 
have  been  influenced  somewhat  by  his  reluctance  to  ap- 
point a  Harvard  man.  He  was  an  exceedingly  pleasant- 
natured  man,  with  no  bitterness  in  him.  But  he  entered 
with  a  good  deal  of  zeal  into  the  not  unhealthy  rivalry  be- 
tween the  two  famous  Universities,  Harvard  and  Yale.  Of 
course  I  did  not  like  that  notion.  President  Hayes  had  an 
exceedingly  friendly  feeling  for  Harvard.  He  had  studied 
at  the  Harvard  Law  School,  and  later  had  the  degree  of 
Doctor  of  Laws  there.  Mr.  Lowell  hesitated  about  accept- 
ing the  duty.  I  said  to  the  President:  "In  the  matter  of 
the  English  Mission,  if  Mr.  Lowell  declines,  I  have  a  sug- 
gestion to  make  which  Mr.  Evarts,  I  am  afraid,  won't  like 
very  well.  But  I  wish  to  ask  you  to  consider  it,  Evarts  or 
no  Evarts."  My  relations  with  both  of  them  made  this 
familiar  and  half -boyish  style  of  dealing  with  so  important 
a  matter  not  unbecoming.  "I  think  President  Eliot  would 
be  an  excellent  person  for  such  a  service.  It  is  understood 
that  he  is  somewhat  out  of  health.  I  think  if  he  should  go 
to  England  for  a  year  or  two,  and  take  a  vacation  from  his 
duties  at  the  College,  it  would  reflect  great  credit  on  your 
Administration  and  on  the  country,  and  he  would  return  to 
his  duties  at  Harvard  with  renewed  health  and  added  repu- 
tation and  capacity  for  usefulness."  Mr.  Hayes  did  not 
quite  commit  himself.  But  he  expressed  his  very  emphatic 
approval  of  the  idea,  and  said  he  guessed  it  might  be  brought 
to  pass.     But  I  had,  at  his  request,  sent  a  cable  to  Mr.  Low- 



ell  who  was  then  in  Spain,  urging  him  to  take  the  place: 
He  was  then  hesitating,  hut  finally,  as  is  well  known,  con- 

I  was  on  the  friendliest  terms  with  President  Hayes.  As 
I  have  already  said  he  was  good  enough  to  offer  me  the 
office  of  Attorney-General,  when  the  appointment  of  Devens 
to  the  Circuit  Court  was  under  consideration. 

I  had  already,  hefore  that  time,  received  from  Mr.  Evarts, 
Secretary  of  State,  the  offer  of  the  English  Mission,  as  I 
have  said  in  another  place,  when  Mr.  Welsh  resigned. 

I  may  as  well  state  here,  although  it  belongs  to  a  later 
time,  that  the  offer  was  made  to  me  again,  by  President 
McKinley.  I  give  the  correspondence  with  President  Mc- 
Kinley  when  he  made  me  that  offer: 

Executive  Mansion,  Washington,  D.  C. 

September  13,  1898. 

Hon.  Geoege  F.  Hoar  (Confidential), 
WoECESTEE,  Massachusetts. 
It  would  give  me  much  satisfaction  to  appoint  you  Am- 
bassador to  London.     Will  it  be  agreeable  to  you! 

William  McKinley. 

September  14,  1898. 

To   THE   PeESIDENT,   WASHINGTON,    D.    C. 

I  am  highly  honored  by  your  confidence,  for  which  I  am 
grateful.  But  I  believe  I  can  better  serve  my  country,  and 
better  support  your  Administration  by  continuing  to  dis- 
charge the  legislative  duties  to  which  I  have  been  accus- 
tomed for  thirty  years,  than  by  undertaking  new  responsi- 
bilities at  my  age,  now  past  seventy-two.  If  it  were  other- 
wise, I  cannot  afford  to  maintain  the  scale  of  living  which 
the  social  customs  of  London  make  almost  indispensable  to 
an  Ambassador,  and  I  have  no  right  to  impose  upon  my 
wife,  in  her  present  state  of  health,  the  burden  which  would 
fall  upon  her.  Be  assured  of  my  warm  personal  regard  and 
of  my  desire  to  stand  by  you  in  the  difficult  and  trying 

period  which  is  before  you. 

^  Geo.  F.  Hoab. 



A  VERY  touching  incident,  characteristic  of  the  kind  heart 
of  President  Eoosevelt,  ought  to  be  put  on  record  in  con- 
nection with  his  visit  to  Worcester. 

During  the  Christmas  holidays  of  1901  a  very  well  known 
Syrian,  a  man  of  high  standing  and  character,  came  into  my 
son's  office  and  told  him  this  story: 

A  neighbor  and  countryman  of  his  had  a  few  years  before 
emigrated  to  the  United  States  and  established  himself  in 
Worcester.  Soon  afterward,  he  formally  declared  his  inten- 
tion of  becoming  an  American  citizen.  After  a  while,  he 
amassed  a  little  money  and  sent  to  his  wife,  whom  he  had  left 
in  Syria,  the  necessary  funds  to  convey  her  and  their  little 
girl  and  boy  to  Worcester.  She  sold  her  furniture  and 
whatever  other  belongings  she  had,  and  went  across  Europe 
to  France,  where  they  sailed  from  one  of  the  northern  ports 
on  a  German  steamer  for  New  York. 

Upon  their  arrival  at  New  York  it  appeared  that  the  chil- 
dren had  contracted  a  disease  of  the  eyelids,  which  the  doc- 
tors of  the  Immigration  Bureau  declared  to  be  trachoma, 
which  is  contagious,  and  in  adults  incurable.  It  was  ordered 
that  the  mother  might  land,  but  that  the  children  must  be 
sent  back  in  the  ship  upon  which  they  arrived,  on  the  fol- 
lowing Thursday.  This  would  have  resulted  in  sending 
them  back  as  paupers,  as  the  steamship  company,  compelled 
to  take  them  as  passengers  free  of  charge,  would  have  given 
them  only  such  food  as  was  left  by  the  sailors,  and  would 
have  dumped  them  out  in  France  to  starve,  or  get  back  as 
beggars  to  Syria. 

The  suggestion  that  the  mother  might  land  was  only  a 
cruel  mockery.  Joseph  J.  George,  a  worthy  citizen  of  Wor- 
cester, brought  the  facts  of  the  case  to  the  attention  of  my 
son,  who  in  turn  brought  them  to  my  attention.     My  son  had 



meantime  advised  that  a  bond  be  offered  to  the  Immigration 
authorities  to  save  them  harmless  from  any  trouble  on  ac- 
count of  the  children. 

I  certified  these  facts  to  the  authorities  and  received  a 
statement  in  reply  that  the  law  was  peremptory,  and  that  it 
required  that  the  children  be  sent  home;  that  trouble  had 
come  from  making  like  exceptions  theretofore ;  that  the  Gov- 
ernment hospitals  were  full  of  similar  cases,  and  the  authori- 
ties must  enforce  the  law  strictly  in  the  future.  Thereupon 
I  addressed  a  telegram  to  the  Immigration  Bureau  at  Wash- 
ington, but  received  an  answer  that  nothing  could  be  done 
for  the  children. 

Then  I  telegraphed  the  facts  to  Senator  Lodge,  who  went 
in  person  to  the  Treasury  Department,  but  could  get  no  more 
favorable  reply.  Senator  Lodge's  telegram  announcing 
their  refusal  was  received  in  Worcester  Tuesday  evening, 
and  repeated  to  me  in  Boston  just  as  I  was  about  to  deliver 
an  address  before  the  Catholic  College  there.  It  was  too  late 
to  do  anything  that  night.  Early  Wednesday  morning,  the 
day  before  the  children  were  to  sail,  when  they  were  already 
on  the  ship,  I  sent  the  following  dispatch  to  President  Boose- 

To  THE  President,  White  House,  Washington,  D.  C. 

I  appeal  to  your  clear  understanding  and  kind  and  brave 
heart  to  interpose  your  authority  to  prevent  an  outrage 
which  will  dishonor  the  country  and  create  a  foul  blot  on 
the  American  flag.  A  neighbor  of  mine  in  Worcester, 
Mass.,  a  Syrian  by  birth,  made  some  time  ago  his  public 
declaration  for  citizenship.  He  is  an  honest,  hard-working 
and  every  way  respectable  man.  His  wife  with  two  small 
children  have  reached  New  York. 

He  sent  out  the  money  to  pay  their  passage.  The  chil- 
dren contracted  a  disorder  of  the  eyes  on  the  ship.  The 
Treasury  authorities  say  that  the  mother  may  land  but  the 
children  cannot,  and  they  are  to  be  sent  back  Thursday. 
Ample  bond  has  been  offered  and  will  be  furnished  to  save 
the  Government  and  everybody  from  injury  or  loss.  I  do 
not  think  such  a  thing  ought  to  happen  under  your  Admin- 


istration,  unless  you  personally  decide  that  the  case  is  with- 
out remedy.  I  am  told  the  authorities  say  they  have  been 
too  easy  heretofore,  and  must  draw  the  line  now.  That 
shows  they  admit  the  power  to  make  exceptions  in  proper 
cases.  Surely,  an  exception  should  be  made  in  case  of  little 
children  of  a  man  lawfully  here,  and  who  has  duly  and  in 
good  faith  declared  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen.  The 
immigration  law  was  never  intended  to  repeal  any  part  of 
the  naturalization  laws  which  provide  that  the  minor  chil- 
dren get  all  the  rights  of  the  father  as  to  citizenship.  My 
son  knows  the  friends  of  this  man  personally  and  that  they 
are  highly  respectable  and  well  off.  If  our  laws  require 
this  cruelty,  it  is  time  for  a  revolution,  and  you  are  just  the 
man  to  head  it. 

Geoege  F.  Hoab. 

Half  an  hour  from  the  receipt  of  that  dispatch  at  the 
"White  House  "Wednesday  forenoon,  Theodore  Roosevelt, 
President  of  the  United  States,  sent  a  peremptory  order  to 
New  York  to  let  the  children  come  in.  They  have  entirely 
recovered  from  the  disorder  of  the  eyes,  which  turned  out 
not  to  be  contagious,  but  only  caused  by  the  glare  of  the 
water,  or  the  hardships  of  the  voyage.  The  children  are 
fair-haired,  with  blue  eyes,  and  of  great  personal  beauty,  and 
would  be  exhibited  with  pride  by  any  American  mother. 

When  the  President  came  to  "Worcester  he  expressed  a 
desire  to  see  the  children.  They  came  to  meet  him  at  my 
house,  dressed  up  in  their  best  and  glorious  to  behold.  The 
President  was  very  much  interested  in  them,  and  said  when 
what  he  had  done  was  repeated  in  his  presence,  that  he  was 
just  beginning  to  get  angry. 

The  result  of  this  incident  was  that  I  had  a  good  many 
similar  applications  for  relief  in  behalf  of  immigrants  com- 
ing in  with  contagious  diseases.  Some  of  them  were  meri- 
torious, and  others  untrustworthy.  In  the  December  ses- 
sion of  1902  I  procured  the  following  amendment  to  be 
inserted  in  the  immigration  law. 

"Whenever  an  alien  shall  have  taken  up  his  permanent 
residence  in  this  country  and  shall  have  filed  his  preliminary 


declaration  to  become  a  citizen  and  thereafter  shall  send  for 
his  wife  or  minor  children  to  join  him,  if  said  wife  or  either 
of  said  children  shall  be  found  to  be  affected  with  any  con- 
tagious disorder,  and  it  seems  that  said  disorder  was  con- 
tracted on  board  the  ship  in  which  they  came,  such  wife  or 
children  shall  be  held  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  shall  prescribe  until  it  shall  be  deter- 
mined whether  the  disorder  will  be  easily  curable  or  whether 
they  can  be  permitted  to  land  without  danger  to  other  per- 
sons; and  they  shall  not  be  deported  until  such  facts  have 
been  ascertained." 


I  HAVE,  since  I  have  been  in  the  Senate,  taken  great  inter- 
est in  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  a  system  of  National  Bank- 
ruptcy. The  Constitution  gives  Congress  power  to  estab- 
lish a  uniform  system  of  Bankruptcy.  The  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts, a  commercial  and  manufacturing  State  from  the 
beginning,  have  always  desired  a  Bankrupt  law.  They  were 
large  dealers  with  other  States  and  with  other  countries. 
Insolvent  debtors  in  Massachusetts  could  not  get  discharge 
from  their  debts  contracted  in  such  dealings.  The  Massa- 
chusetts creditors  having  debts  against  insolvents  in  other 
States  found  that  their  debtors  under  the  laws  of  those 
States  either  got  preferences  or  made  fraudulent  assign- 
ments which  they  could  not  detect  or  prevent. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  bankruptcy  laws  have  always  been 
unpopular  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  The  Democrat 
who  strictly  construed  the  Constitution  did  not  like  to  see 
this  power  of  Congress  vigorously  exercised.  The  National 
Courts,  who  must  administer  such  laws,  were  always  the 
object  of  jealousy  and  suspicion  in  the  South  and  "West. 
The  people  did  not  like  to  be  summoned  to  attend  the  settle- 
ment of  an  estate  in  bankruptcy,  hundreds  and  hundreds  of 
miles,  to  the  place  where  the  United  States  Court  was  sit- 
ting, in  States  like  Texas  or  Missouri.  The  sympathy  of 
many  communities  is  apt  to  be  with  the  debtor,  and  not  with 
the  creditors,  who  were  represented  as  harpies  or  vultures 
preying  on  the  flesh  of  their  unfortunate  victims.  A  good 
example  of  this  prejudice  will  be  found  in  an  extract  from 
the  speech  of  Senator  Ingalls,  of  Kansas.  He  said  in 
defending  what  was  known  as  the  equity  scheme : 

' '  The  opposition  arose  first,  from  the  great  wholesale  mer- 
chants in  the  chief  distributing  centres  of  the  country.     They 



have  their  agents  and  attorneys  in  the  vicinity  of  every 
debtor,  obtaining  early  information  of  approaching  disaster, 
and  ready  to  avail  themselves  of  the  local  machinery  of 
State  courts  by  attachment  or  by  preferences,  through  which 
they  can  secure  full  payment  of  their  claims,  to  the  exclusion 
of  less  powerful  or  less  vigilant  but  equally  meritorious 
creditors.  Naturally  they  want  no  Bankrupt  law  of  any 

"Second.  From  the  disabled  veterans  of  the  old  army 
registers;  from  the  professional  assignees  and  wreckers  of 
estates,  who,  by  exorbitant  fees  and  collusive  sales  of  assets 
to  convenient  favorites,  plundered  debtor  and  creditor  alike 
and  made  the  system  an  engine  of  larceny  and  confiscation. 

"Third.  From  those  who  desire,  instead  of  a  system 
for  the  discharge  of  honest  but  unfortunate  debtors  upon 
the  surrender  of  their  estates,  a  criminal  code  and  a  thumb- 
screw machine  for  the  collection  of  doubtful  and  desperate 
debts.  They  covet  a  return  to  the  primitive  practices  which 
prevailed  in  Eome,  when  the  debtor  was  sold  into  slavery 
or  had  his  body  cut  into  pieces  and  distributed  pro  rata 
among  his  creditors. 

"Fourth.  From  those  timid  and  cautious  conservatives 
who  believe  that  nothing  is  valuable  that  is  not  venerable. 

"Like  the  statesman  described  by  Macaulay,  they  prefer 
to  perish  by  precedent  rather  than  be  saved  by  innovation. 
They  adhere  to  ancient  failures  rather  than  incur  the  risk 
of  success  through  venture  and  experiment. 

' '  Fifth.  From  Boards  of  Trade,  Chambers  of  Commerce 
and  other  ornamental  organizations  who,  being  entirely  unin- 
formed on  the  subject,  permit  themselves  to  become  the  con- 
duits through  which  the  misrepresentation  and  animosity  of 
avaricious  creditors  and  rapacious  attorneys  are  discharged 
upon  Congress  and  the  country." 

I  had  moved  in  the  Senate,  in  1882,  a  bill  favored  by  the 
merchants  and  manufacturers  of  Massachusetts,  which  was 
largely  the  work  of  Judge  John  Lowell,  of  the  United  States 
Circuit  Court,  one  of  the  most  accomplished  lawyers  of  his 
day,  as  an  amendment  to  a  bill  which  Mr.  Edmunds,  Mr. 


Davis  and  Mr.  Ingalls  had  reported  as  a  Subcommittee  to 
the  Senate  Judiciaiy  Committee,  and  which  had  been  re- 
ported from  that  Committee  to  the  Senate. 

The  Lowell  Bill  was  on  my  motion  substituted  for  the 
report  of  the  Judiciary  Commitee,  by  a  majority  of  three. 
This  bill  was  extensively  discussed  in  June  and  December. 
But  I  was  unable  to  secure  its  passage.  It  passed  the  Sen- 
ate, but  it  did  not  get  through  the  House. 

I  have  had  the  Parliamentary  charge  of  all  Bankruptcy 
measures  in  the  Senate  from  that  time.  After  the  failure 
of  the  Lowell  Bill,  the  Boards  of  Trade  and  Chambers  of 
Commerce,  and  other  like  associations  throughout  the  coun- 
try, took  up  the  matter  very  zealously  by  employing  an  able 
lawyer,  the  Hon.  Jay  L.  Torrey  of  Missouri,  to  present  the 
matter  in  the  two  Houses  of  Congress.  He  was  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  principles  and  history  of  Bankruptcy 
laws  in  this  country  and  England.  But  he  had  no  com- 
promise in  him.  He  insisted  on  the  Bill  which  he  drew, 
which  was  a  modification  of  the  Lowell  Bill,  without  being 
willing  to  make  any  concession  to  objection  or  difference  of 
opinion  in  Congress,  or  out  of  it.  He  said  he  would  have  a 
perfect  law,  or  none  at  all.  The  measure  as  he  drew  it  was 
apparently  very  austere  and  harsh  to  the  debtor.  It  enu- 
merated a  large  number  of  offences  for  which  the  debtor 
was  to  be  punished  by  fine  and  imprisonment,  and  by  a 
denial  of  his  discharge.  Mr.  Torrey 's  provisions  were  not 
very  unreasonable.  But  they  made  it  seem  as  if  the  Bill 
were  a  penal  code  for  the  punishment  of  fraudulent  debtors. 
A  simple  provision  that  any  debtor  who  wilfully  should 
make  false  answer  to  any  question  lawfully  put  to  him  by 
the  Court,  or  who  wilfully  concealed  or  attempted  to  conceal 
any  property  from  his  assignee  should  lose  his  discharge  and 
be  punished  with  a  proper  and  moderate  punishment,  would 
have  answered  the  whole  purpose.  I  take  some  blame  to 
myself  for  not  insisting  more  strenuously  upon  modifying 
Mr.  Torrey 's  measure.  But  he  constantly  visited  different 
Senators  and  Representatives  and  came  back  to  me  with 
glowing  accounts  of  the  prospects  of  the  Bill,  and  of  their 
promises  to  support  the  Bill.    He  was  also  the  agent  of  the 


business  organizations  of  the  country  who  had  passed  reso- 
lutions in  favor  of  the  measure  as  he  had  drawn  it.  It 
seemed  to  me  therefore  that  if  I  should  get  the  Bill  amended 
and  then  it  got  lost,  I  should  incur  the  great  reproach  of 
having  obstinately  set  up  my  judgment  against  that  of  this 
large  number  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  country,  who  were  so 
deeply  interested  in  the  matter.  So  the  Bill,  though  brought 
up  and  pressed  Congress  after  Congress,  failed  until  Mr. 
Torrey  enlisted  in  the  Spanish  War. 

I  then  introduced  a  Bill  in  a  softened  and  modified  form. 
It  was  attacked  in  that  form  by  Senator  Nelson  of  Minne- 
sota, a  very  excellent  lawyer  and  gentleman  of  great  influ- 
ence, in  the  Senate.  He  succeeded  in  having  the  Bill  modi- 
fied and  softened  still  more.  The  Bill,  then  passed  and  went 
to  the  House  which,  under  the  leadership  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  substituted  the  original  Bill. 

Mr.  Nelson  and  I,  with  Mr.  Lindsay  of  Kentucky,  were 
put  on  the  Conference  Committee  in  the  Senate,  with  Mr. 
Henderson,  afterward  Speaker,  Mr.  Ray  of  New  York,  now 
Judge  of  the  U.  S.  District  Court,  and  Mr.  Terry  of  Mis- 
souri, on  the  part  of  the  House.  "We  struggled  nearly  the 
whole  winter.  Mr.  Nelson  and  Mr.  Ray  took  the  burden  of 
the  contest  upon  their  shoulders.  Their  attempts  at  com- 
promise reminded  their  brethren  of  the  old  scientific  prob- 
lem— "What  will  happen  when  an  irresistible  force  encoun- 
ters an  immovable  obstacle."  But  both  gentlemen,  each 
exceedingly  firm  in  his  own  opinion  when  he  thought  he  was 
in  the  right,  were  wise  and  reasonable  and  conscientious 
men.  So  at  last  they  agreed  upon  the  present  Bankruptcy 
Bill,  which  became  a  law  July  1,  1898.  It  was  on  the  whole 
satisfactory  to  the  country,  except  for  one  clause  in  it,  which 
was  interpreted  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  in  a 
manner  contrary  to  the  understanding  and  expectation  of 
the  framers  of  the  Bill. 

A  law  was  passed  February  7,  1903,  correcting  this  and 
some  minor  defects.  It  is  hoped,  though  we  cannot  be  sure  in 
such  a  matter,  that  a  permanent  system  of  Bankruptcy,  so 
essential  to  all  commercial,  indeed  to  all  civilized  nations,  is 
now  established,  and  will  be  maintained  in  the  United  States. 



It  has  been  my  singular  ill  fortune  that  I  have  been  com- 
pelled to  differ  from  the  Republican  Party,  and  from  a  good 
many  of  my  political  associates,  upon  many  important  mat- 

It  has  been  my  singular  good  fortune  that,  so  far,  they 
have  all  come  to  my  way  of  thinking,  as  have  the  majority 
of  the  American  people,  in  regard  to  every  one,  with  per- 
haps one  exception.  That  is  the  dealing  of  the  American 
people  with  the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  by  the 
Treaty  with  Spain.  The  war  that  followed  it  crushed  the 
Republic  that  the  Philippine  people  had  set  up  for  them- 
selves, deprived  them  of  their  independence,  and  estab- 
lished there,  by  American  power,  a  Grovernment  in  which  the 
people  have  no  part,  against  their  will.  No  man,  I  think, 
will  seriously  question  that  that  action  was  contrary  to  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  the  fundamental  principles 
declared  in  many  State  constitutions,  the  principles  avowed 
by  the  founders  of  the  Republic  and  by  our  statesmen  of 
all  parties  down  to  a  time  long  after  the  death  of  Lincoln. 

If  the  question  were,  whether  I  am  myself  right,  or 
whether  my  friends  and  companions  in  the  Republican 
Party  be  right,  I  should  submit  to  their  better  judgment. 
But  I  feel  quite  confident,  though  of  that  no  man  can  be 
certain,  that  if  the  judgment  of  the  American  people,  even 
in  this  generation,  could  be  taken  on  that  question  alone,  I 
should  find  myself  in  the  majority.  If  it  be  not  so,  the 
issue  is  between  the  opinion  of  the  American  people  for 
more  than  a  century,  and  the  opinion  that  the  American 
people  has  expressed  for  one  or  two  Presidential  terms. 

Surely  I  do  not  need  to  argue  the  question;  at  any 
rate,  I  will  not  here  undertake  to  argue  the  question,  that 
our  dealing  with  the  Philippine  people  is  a  violation  of  the 



principles  to  wMch  our  people  adhered  from  1776  to  1893. 
If  the  maintenance  of  slavery  were  inconsistent  with  them, 
it  was  admitted  that  in  that  particular  we  were  violating 
them,  or  were  unable  from  circumstances  to  carry  them  into 
effect.    Mr.  Jefferson  thought  so  himself. 

But  the  accomplishment  by  this  Eepublic  of  its  purpose 
to  subjugate  the  Philippine  people  to  its  will,  under  the 
claim  that  it,  and  not  they,  had  the  right  to  judge  of  their 
fitness  for  self-government,  is  a  rejection  of  the  old  Ameri- 
can doctrine  as  applicable  to  any  race  we  may  judge  to  be 
our  inferior. 

This  doctrine  will  be  applied  hereafter,  unless  it  be  aban- 
doned, to  the  Negro  at  home.  Senator  Tillman  of  South 
Carolina  well  said,  and  no  gentleman  in  the  Senate  contra- 
dicted him :  ' '  Republican  leaders  do  not  longer  dare  to  call 
into  question  the  justice  or  the  necessity  of  limiting  Negro 
suffrage  in  the  South."  The  same  gentleman  said  at  an- 
other time:  "I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  remark- 
able change  that  has  come  over  the  spirit  of  the  dream  of 
the  Republicans.  Your  slogans  of  the  past— brotherhood 
of  man  and  fatherhood  of  God— have  gone  glimmering  down 
through  the  ages.  The  brotherhood  of  man  exists  no 
longer. ' '  These  statements  of  Mr.  Tillman  have  never  been 
challenged,  and  never  can  be. 

I  do  not  mean  here  to  renew  the  almost  interminable  de- 
bate. I  will  only  make  a  very  brief  statement  of  my  posi- 

The  discussion  began  with  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii. 
Ever  since  I  came  to  the  Senate  I  had  carefully  studied  the 
matter  of  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii.  I  had  become  thor- 
oughly satisfied  that  it  would  be  a  great  advantage  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  as  well  as  for  the  people  of 

Hawaii  is  2,100  miles  from  our  Pacific  coast.  Yet  if  a 
line  be  drawn  from  the  point  of  our  territory  nearest  Asia 
to  the  Southern  boundary  of  California,  that  line  being  the 
chord  of  which  our  Pacific  coast  is  the  bow,  Hawaii  will  fall 
this  side  of  it.  Held  by  a  great  Nation  with  whom  we  were 
at  war,  it  would  be  a  most  formidable  and  valuable  base  of 



supplies.  We  had  sustained  a  peculiar  relation  to  it. 
American  missionaries  had  redeemed  the  people  from  bar- 
barism and  Paganism.  Many  of  them,  and  their  descend- 
ants, had  remained  in  the  Islands.  The  native  Hawaiians 
were  a  perishing  race.  They  had  gone  down  from  300,000 
to  30,000  within  one  hundred  years. 

The  Japanese  wanted  it.  The  Portuguese  wanted  it. 
Other  nations  wanted  it.  But  the  Hawaiians  seemed  neither 
to  know  nor  care  whether  they  wanted  it  or  no.  They  were 
a  perishing  people.  Their  only  hope  and  desire  and  expec- 
tation was  that  in  the  Providence  of  God  they  might  lead  a 
quiet,  undisturbed  life,  fishing,  bathing,  supplied  with  trop- 
ical fruits,  and  be  let  alone. 

We  had  always  insisted  that  our  relation  to  them  was 
peculiar ;  that  they  could  not  be  permitted  to  fall  under  the 
dominion  of  another  power,  even  by  their  own  consent.  That 
had  been  declared  by  our  Department  of  State  under  Admin- 
istrations of  all  parties,  including  Mr.  Webster,  Mr.  Seward, 
and  Mr.  Bayard.  They  were  utterly  helpless.  As  their 
Queen  has  lately  declared:  "The  best  thing  for  them  that 
could  have  happened  was  to  belong  to  the  United  States. ' ' 

By  the  Constitution  of  Hawaii,  the  G-overnment  had  been 
authorized  to  make  a  treaty  of  annexation  with  this  country. 
It  was  said  that  that  Constitution  was  the  result  of  usur- 
pation which  would  not  have  to  come  to  pass  but  for 
American  aid,  and  the  presence  of  one  of  our  men-of-war. 
But  that  Government  had  been  maintained  for  six  or  seven 
years.  Four  of  them  were  while  Mr.  Cleveland  was  Presi- 
dent, who  it  was  well  known  would  be  in  full  sympathy  with 
an  attempt  to  restore  the  old  Government.  So  if  the  people 
had  been  against  it,  the  Government  under  that  Constitution 
could  not  have  lasted  an  hour. 

President  Harrison  had  negotiated  a  treaty  of  annexation, 
against  which  no  considerable  remonstrance  or  opposition 
was  uttered.  My  approval  of  it  was  then,  I  suppose,  well 
known.  Certainly  no  friend  of  mine,  and  nobody  in  Massa- 
chusetts, so  far  as  I  know,  in  the  least  objected  or  remon- 
strated against  it.  The  treaty  was  withdrawn  from  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Senate  by  President  Cleveland. 


Another  was  negotiated  soon  after  President  McKinley 
came  in.  Meantime,  however,  the  controversy  with  Spain 
had  assumed  formidable  proportions,  and  the  craze  for  an 
extension  of  our  Empire  had  begun  its  course.  Many  Re- 
publican leaders  were  advocating  the  acquisition  of  the 
Hawaiian  Islands,  not  for  the  reasons  I  have  just  stated,  but 
on  the  avowed  ground  that  it  was  necessary  we  should  own 
them  as  a  point  of  vantage  for  acquiring  dominion  in  the 
East.  It  was  said  that  China  was  about  to  be  divided  among 
the  great  Western  powers,  and  that  we  must  have  our  share. 
I  saw  when  the  time  approached  for  action  on  the  McKinley 
Treaty  that  the  question  could  not  be  separated,  at  least  in 
debate,  from  the  question  of  entering  upon  a  career  of  con- 
quest of  Empire  in  the  Far  East. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  question  of  duty  came  to 
me :  "Will  you  adhere  to  the  purpose  long  formed,  and  vote 
for  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii  solely  on  its  own  merit?  Or, 
will  you  vote  against  it,  for  fear  that  the  bad  and  mischiev- 
ous reasons  that  are  given  for  it  in  so  many  quarters,  will 
have  a  pernicious  tendency  only  to  be  counteracted  by  the 
defeat  of  the  treaty  itself? 

I  hesitated  long.  President  McKinley  sent  for  me  to 
come  to  the  White  House,  as  was  his  not  infrequent  habit. 
He  said  he  wanted  to  consult  me  upon  the  question  whether 
it  would  be  wise  for  him  to  have  a  personal  interview  with 
Senator  Morrill  of  Vermont.  He  had  been  told  that  Mr. 
Morrill  was  opposed  to  the  Treaty.  The  President  said: 
"I  do  not  quite  like  to  try  to  influence  the  action  of  an  old 
gentleman  like  Mr.  Morrill,  so  excellent,  and  of  such  great 
experience.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  might  be  thought  pre- 
sumptuous, if  I  were  to  do  so.  But  it  is  very  important  to 
us  to  have  his  vote,  if  we  can. ' '  The  President  added  some- 
thing implying  that  he  understood  that  I  was  in  favor  of 
the  Treaty. 

I  said,  "I  ought  to  say,  Mr.  President,  in  all  candor,  that 
I  feel  very  doubtful  whether  I  can  support  it  myself." 
President  McKinley  said:  "Well,  I  don't  know  what  I  shall 
do.  We  cannot  let  those  Islands  go  to  Japan.  Japan  has 
her  eye  on  them.    Her  people  are  crowding  in  there.    I 


am  satisfied  they  do  not  go  there  voluntarily,  as  ordinary 
immigrants,  but  that  Japan  is  pressing  them  in  there,  in 
order  to  get  possession  before  anybody  can  interfere.  If 
something  be  not  done,  there  will  be  before  long  another 
Revolution,  and  Japan  will  get  control.  Some  little  time 
ago  the  Hawaiian  Government  observed  that  when  the  im- 
migrants from  a  large  steamer  went  ashore  they  marched 
with  a  military  step,  indicating  that  they  were  a  body 
of  trained  soldiers.  Thereupon  Hawaii  prohibited  the 
further  coming  in  of  the  Japanese.  Japan  claimed  that 
was  in  violation  of  their  treaty,  and  sent  a  ship  of  war 
to  Hawaii.  I  was  obliged  to  notify  Japan  that  no  compul- 
sory measures  upon  Hawaii,  in  behalf  of  the  Japan  Grov- 
ernment,  would  be  tolerated  by  this  country.  So  she  de- 
sisted. But  the  matters  are  still  in  a  very  dangerous 
position,  and  Japan  is  doubtless  awaiting  her  oppor- 
tunity. ' ' 

I  told  President  McKinley  that  I  favored  then,  as  I  always 
had,  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii.  But  I  did  not  like  the  spirit 
with  which  it  was  being  advocated  both  in  the  Senate  and 
out  of  it.  I  instanced  several  very  distinguished  gentlemen 
indeed,  one  a  man  of  very  high  authority  in  the  Senate  in 
matters  relating  to  foreign  affairs,  who  were  urging  publicly 
and  privately  the  Hawaiian  Treaty  on  the  ground  that 
we  must  have  Hawaii  in  order  to  help  us  get  our  share  of 
China.  President  McKinley  disclaimed  any  such  purpose. 
He  expressed  his  earnest  and  emphatic  dissent  from  the 
opinions  imputed  to  several  leading  Republicans,  whom  he 

I  never,  at  any  time  during  the  discussion  of  the  Philip- 
pine question,  expressed  a  more  emphatic  disapproval  of  the 
acquisition  of  dependencies  or  Oriental  Empire  by  military 
strength,  than  he  expressed  on  that  occasion.  I  am  justified 
in  putting  this  on  record,  not  only  because  I  am  confirmed 
by  several  gentlemen  in  public  life,  who  had  interviews  with 
him,  but  because  he  made  in  substance  the  same  declarations 
in  public. 

He  declared,  speaking  of  this  very  matter  of  acquiring 
sovereignty  over  Spanish  territory  by  conquest: 


/      "Forcible  annexation,  according  to  our  American  code  of 
y  morals,  would  be  criminal  aggression]" 

He  said  at  another  time: 

"Human  rights  and  constitutional  privileges  must  not  be 
forgotten  in  the  race  for  wealth  and  commercial  supremacy. 
The  Government  of  the  people  must  be  by  the  people  and 
not  by  a  few  of  the  people.  It  must  rest  upon  the  free 
consent  of  the  governed  and  all  of  the  governed.  Power, 
it  must  be  remembered,  which  is  secured  by  oppression  or 
usurpation  or  by  any  form  of  injustice  is  soon  dethroned. 
We  have  no  right  in  law  or  morals  to  usurp  that  which  be- 
longs to  another,  whether  it  is  property  or  power." 

I  suppose  he  was  then  speaking  of  our  duty  as  to  any 
people  whom  we  might  liberate  from  Spain,  as  the  result  of 
the  Spanish  War.  He  unquestionably  meant  that  we  had 
no  right,  in  law  or  morals,  to  usurp  the  right  of  self-gov- 
ernment which  belonged  to  the  Cubans,  or  to  the  Philippine 

Yet  I  have  no  doubt  whatever  that  in  the  attitude  that 
he  took  later  he  was  actuated  by  a  serious  and  lofty  purpose 
to  do  right.  I  think  he  was  led  on  from  one  step  to  another 
by  what  he  deemed  the  necessity  of  the  present  occasion.  I 
dare  say  that  he  was  influenced,  as  any  other  man  who  was 
not  more  than  human  would  have  been  influenced,  by  the 
apparently  earnest  desire  of  the  American  people,  as  he 
understood  it,  as  it  was  conveyed  to  him  on  his  Western 
journey.  But  I  believe  every  step  he  took  he  thought  neces- 
sary at  the  time.  I  further  believe,  although  I  may  not  be 
able  to  convince  other  men,  and  no  man  will  know  until  the 
secret  history  of  that  time  shall  be  made  known,  that  if  he 
had  lived,  before  his  Administration  was  over,  he  would 
have  placed  the  Republic  again  on  the  principles  from  which 
it  seems  to  me  we  departed — the  great  doctrine  of  Jefferson, 
the  great  doctrine  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  that 
there  can  be  no  just  Government  by  one  people  over  another 
without  its  consent,  and  that  the  International  law  declared 
by  the  Eepublic  is  that  all  Governments  must  depend  for 


their  just  powers  upon  the  consent  of  the  governed.  This 
was  insisted  on  by  our  Fathers  as  the  doctrine  of  Interna- 
tional law,  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  infant  Eepublic  for  it- 
self. In  this  I  am  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Secre- 
tary Long,  who  was  in  President  McKinley's  most  intimate 

The  Treaty  negotiated  by  President  McKinley  with  Ha- 
waii was  not  acted  upon.  It  was  concluded  to  substitute  a 
joint  resolution,  for  which  there  was  a  precedent  in  the  case 
of  the  acquisition  of  Texas.  I  voted  for  the  joint  resolution, 
as  did  Senator  Hale  of  Maine,  and  several  Democratic  Sena- 
tors, who  were  earnestly  opposed  to  what  is  known  as  the 
policy  of  Imperialism. 

I  left  the  President,  after  the  conversation  above  related, 
without  giving  him  any  assurance  as  to  my  action.  But  I 
determined  on  full  reflection,  to  support  the  acquisition  of 
Hawaii,  in  accordance  with  my  long-settled  purpose,  and  at 
the  same  time  to  make  a  clear  and  emphatic  statement  of 
my  unalterable  opposition  to  acquiring  dependencies  in  the 
East,  if  we  did  not  expect,  when  the  proper  time  came,  to 
admit  them  to  the  Union  as  States.  This  I  did  to  the  best 
of  my  power.  I  was  invited  to  give  an  address  before  a 
college  in  Pennsylvania,  where  I  took  occasion  to  make  an 
emphatic  declaration  of  the  doctrine  on  which  I  meant 
to  act. 

Afterward,  July  5,  1898,  I  made  a  speech  in  the  Senate, 
on  the  joint  resolution  for  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii,  in  which 
I  said  that  I  had  entertained  grave  doubts  in  regard  to  that 
measure;  that  I  had  approached  the  subject  with  greater 
hesitation  and  anxiety  than  I  had  ever  felt  in  regard  to  any 
other  matter  during  the  whole  of  my  public  life. 

I  went  on  to  say: 

"The  trouble  I  have  found  with  the  Hawaiian  business 
is  this :  Not  in  the  character  of  the  population  of  the  Sand- 
wich Islands,  not  in  their  distance  from  our  shores,  not  in 
the  doubt  that  we  have  an  honest  right  to  deal  with  the  exist- 
ing government  there  in  such  a  matter.  I  have  found  my 
trouble  in  the  nature  and  character  of  the  argument  by 


which,  in  the  beginning  and  ever  since,  a  great  many  friends 
of  annexation  have  sought  to  support  it.  .  .  . 

"If  this  be  the  first  step  in  the  acquisition  of  dominion 
over  barbarous  archipelagoes  in  distant  seas;  if  we  are  to 
enter  into  competition  with  the  great  powers  of  Europe  in 
the  plundering  of  China,  in  the  division  of  Africa;  if  we 
are  to  quit  our  own  to  stand  on  foreign  lands;  if  our  com- 
merce is  hereafter  to  be  forced  upon  unwilling  peoples  at 
the  cannon's  mouth;  if  we  are  ourselves  to  be  governed  in 
part  by  peoples  to  whom  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
is  a  stranger;  or,  worse  still,  if  we  are  to  govern  subjects 
and  vassal  States,  trampling  as  we  do  it  on  our  own  great 
Charter  which  recognizes  alike  the  liberty  and  the  dignity  of 
individual  manhood,  then  let  us  resist  this  thing  in  the  be- 
ginning, and  let  us  resist  it  to  the  death. 

"I  do  not  agree  with  those  gentlemen  who  think  we  would 
wrest  the  Philippine  Islands  from  Spain  and  take  charge 
of  them  ourselves.  I  do  not  think  we  should  acquire  Cuba, 
as  the  result  of  the  existing  war,  to  be  annexed  to  the  United 

I  reinforced  this  protest  as  well  as  I  could.  But  I  went 
on  to  state  the  reasons  which  had  actuated  me  in  favoring 
the  measure,  and  that  my  unconquerable  repugnance  to  the 
acquisition  of  territory  to  be  held  in  dependency  did  not 
apply  to  that  case. 

I  cited  the  Teller  resolution,  and  declared  that  it  bound 
the  American  people  in  honor,  and  that  its  principle  applied 
to  all  Spanish  territory.  I  maintained  that  there  was  noth- 
ing in  the  acquisition  of  Hawaii  inconsistent  with  this  doc- 
trine.    I  think  so  still. 

I  was  bitterly  reproached  by  some  worthy  persons,  who  I 
suppose  will  always  find  matter  for  bitter  reproach  in  every- 
thing said  or  done  on  public  matters.  They  charged  me 
with  speaking  one  way  and  voting  another.  But  I  am  con- 
tent to  leave  the  case  on  its  merits,  and  on  the  record. 

The  war  went  on.  The  feeling  of  the  country  was  deeply 
excited.  President  McKinley  made  his  famous  Western 
journey.    He  was  greeted  by  enthusiastic  throngs.     The 


feeling  in  tliat  part  of  tlie  country  in  favor  of  permanent 
dominion  over  the  Philippine  Islands  was  uttered  by  excited 
crowds,  whom  he  addressed  from  the  platform  and  the  rail- 
road cars  as  he  passed  through  the  country.  But  the  sober, 
conservative  feeling,  which  seldom  finds  utterance  in  such 
assemblies,  did  not  make  itself  heard. 

The  President  returned  to  Washington,  undoubtedly  in 
the  honest  belief  that  the  country  demanded  that  he  acquire 
the  Philippine  Islands,  and  that  Congress  should  govern 

I  have  never  attributed  publicly,  or  in  my  own  heart,  to 
President  McKinley  any  but  the  most  conscientious  desire 
to  do  his  duty  in  what,  as  the  case  seems  to  me,  was  an 
entire  change  of  purpose.  Many  military  and  naval  officers, 
from  whose  reports  he  had  to  get  his  facts  almost  wholly, 
insisted  that  the  Philippine  people  were  unfit  for  self-gov- 
ernment. After  the  unhappy  conflict  of  arms  the  solution 
of  the  problem  seemed  to  be  to  compel  the  Philippine  people 
to  unconditional  submission.  It  would  not  be  just  or  fair 
that  I  should  undertake  to  state  the  reasons  which  controlled 
the  President  in  adopting  the  conclusions  to  which  I  did  not 
myself  agree.  I  am  merely  telling  my  own  part  in  the  trans- 

"When  I  got  back  to  Washington,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
session  in  December,  1898,  I  had  occasion  to  see  the  Presi- 
dent almost  immediately.  His  purpose  was  to  make  a 
Treaty  by  which,  without  the  assent  of  their  inhabitants,  we 
should  acquire  the  Philippine  Islands.  We  were  to  hold  and 
govern  in  subjection  the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands. 
That  was  pretty  well  understood. 

The  national  power  of  Spain  was  destroyed.  It  was  clear 
that  she  must  submit  to  whatever  terms  we  should  impose. 
The  President  had  chosen,  as  Commissioners  to  negotiate 
the  Treaty,  five  gentlemen,  three  of  whom.  Senators  Cush- 
man  K.  Davis,  and  William  P.  Prye  and  Whitelaw  Reid,  the 
accomplished  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune,  former  Min- 
ister to  France,  were  well  known  to  be  zealous  for  acquiring 
territory  in  the  East.  Mr.  Frye  was  said  to  have  declared  in 
a  speech  not  long  before  he  went  abroad  that  he  was  in  favor 


of  keeping  everything  we  could  lay  our  hands  on.  I  sup- 
pose that  was,  however,  intended  as  a  bit  of  jocose  extrava- 
gance, which  that  most  excellent  gentleman  did  not  mean  to 
have  taken  too  seriously. 

Mr.  Day,  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  Senator  Gray  of 
Delaware,  were  understood  to  be  utterly  opposed  to  the  pol- 
icy of  expansion  or  Imperialism. 

I  do  not  know  about  Mr.  Day.  But  it  appeared,  when 
three  years  afterward  the  correspondence  between  the  Com- 
missioners and  the  Department  of  State  became  public,  that 
Mr.  Day  expressed  no  objection  to  the  acquisition  of  Luzon, 
but  objected  to  a  peremptory  demand  for  the  whole  Philip- 
pine Island  group,  thereby— to  use  his  language — "leaving 
xis  open  to  the  imputation  of  following  agreement  to  nego- 
tiate with  demand  for  whole  subject  matter  of  discussion 
ourselves. ' ' 

The  public  impression  as  to  Senator  Gray  is  confirmed 
hy  the  following  remonstrance,  which  appears  in  the  same 
-correspondence : 

Peace  Commissioners  to  Me.  Hay 


Paris,  October  25,  1898. 
The  undersigned  cannot  agree  that  it  is  wise  to  take 
Philippine  Islands  in  whole  or  in  part.  To  do  so  would  be 
to  reverse  accepted  continental  policy  of  the  country,  de- 
clared and  acted  upon  throughout  our  history.  Propinquity 
governs  the  case  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Eico.  Policy  proposed 
introduces  us  into  European  politics  and  the  entangling  alli- 
ances against  which  Washington  and  all  American  statesmen 
have  protested.  It  will  make  necessary  a  navy  equal  to 
largest  of  powers;  a  greatly  increased  military  establish- 
ment ;  immense  sums  for  fortifications  and  harbors ;  multiply 
occasions  for  dangerous  complications  with  foreign  nations, 
and  increase  burdens  of  taxation.  Will  receive  in  compen- 
sation no  outlet  for  American  labor  in  labor  market  already 
overcrowded  and  cheap;  no  area  for  homes  for  American 
citizens ;  climate  and  social  conditions  demoralizing  to  char- 
acter of  American  youth ;  new  and  disturbing  questions  in- 


troduced  into  our  politics;  church  question  menacing.  On 
whole,  instead  of  indemnity— injury. 

The  undersigned  cannot  agree  that  any  obligation  incurred 
to  insurgents  is  paramount  to  our  own  manifest  interests. 
Attacked  Manila  as  part  of  legitimate  war  against  Spain. 
If  we  had  captured  Cadiz  and  Carlists  had  helped  us,  would 
not  owe  duty  to  stay  by  them  at  the  conclusion  of  war.  On 
the  contrary,  interests  and  duty  would  require  us  to  abandon 
both  Manila  and  Cadiz.  No  place  for  colonial  administra- 
tion or  government  of  subject  people  in  American  system. 
So  much  from  standpoint  of  interest ;  but  even  conceding  all 
benefits  claimed  for  annexation,  we  thereby  abandon  the  in- 
finitely greater  benefit  to  accrue  from  acting  the  part  of  a 
great,  powerful,  and  Christian  nation;  we  exchange  the 
moral  grandeur  and  strength  to  be  gained  by  keeping  our 
word  to  nations  of  the  world  and  by  exhibiting  a  magna- 
nimity and  moderation  in  the  hour  of  victory  that  becomes 
the  advanced  civilization  we  claim,  for  doubtful  material  ad- 
vantages and  shameful  stepping  down  from  high  moral  posi- 
tion boastfully  assumed.  We  should  set  example  in  these 
respects,  not  follow  in  the  selfish  and  vulgar  greed  for  terri- 
tory which  Europe  has  inherited  from  mediseval  times.  Our 
declaration  of  war  upon  Spain  was  accompanied  by  a  solemn 
and  deliberate  definition  of  our  purpose.  Now  that  we  have 
achieved  all  and  more  than  our  object,  let  us  simply  keep 
our  word.  Third  article  of  the  protocol  leaves  everything 
concerning  the  control  of  the  Philippine  Islands  to  negotia- 
tion between  the  parties. 

It  is  absurd  now  to  say  that  we  will  not  negotiate  but  will 
appropriate  the  whole  subject-matter  of  negotiation.  At 
the  very  least  let  us  adhere  to  the  President's  instructions 
and  if  conditions  require  the  keeping  of  Luzon  forego  the 
material  advantages  claimed  in  annexing  other  islands. 
Above  all  let  us  not  make  a  mockery  of  the  injunction  con- 
tained in  those  instructions,  where,  after  stating  that  we  took 
up  arms  only  in  obedience  to  the  dictates  of  humanity  and 
in  the  fulfillment  of  high  public  and  moral  obligations,  and 
that  we  had  no  design  of  aggrandizement  and  no  ambition  of 
conquest,  the  President  among  other  things  eloquently  says : 


"It  is  my  earnest  wish  that  the  United  States  in  making 
peace  should  follow  the  same  high  rule  of  conduct  which 
guided  it  in  facing  war.  \It  should  be  as  scrupulous  and 
magnanimous  in  the  concluding  settlement  as  it  was  just  and 
humane  in  its  original  action.'! 

This  and  more,  of  which  I  eariiestly  ask  a  reperusal,  binds 
my  conscience  and  governs  my  action. 

George  Geat. 

Wednesday,  12.30,  night. 

Senator  Gray  afterward  signed  the  Treaty,  defended  it  in 
debate,  and  voted  for  its  ratification.  He  vigorously  de- 
fended his  vote  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  chiefly  by  the 
argument  that  when  he  learned  that  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  United  States  to  expel  Spain  from  the  Philippine 
Islands,  he  concluded  it  was  our  duty  to  remain  there  for 
the  protection  of  the  people  against  foreign  rapacity  and 
against  domestic  anarchy.  He  claimed  that  he  had  been  in- 
fluenced in  coming  to  this  conclusion  very  considerably  by 
the  fact  that  I  was  reported  to  have  said  that  under  no  cir- 
cumstances would  we  give  back  the  Philippine  people  to 
Spain.  That  was  true.  I  believed  then,  and  believe  now, 
that  it  was  our  duty  to  deliver  them  from  Spain,  to  protect 
them  against  her,  or  against  the  cupidity  of  any  other  nation 
until  her  people  could  have  tried  fully  the  experiment  of  self- 
government,  in  which  I  have  little  doubt  they  would  have 

When  I  saw  President  McKinley  early  in  December,  1898, 
he  was,  I  suppose,  committed  to  the  policy  to  which  he  ad- 
hered. He  greeted  me  with  the  delightful  and  affectionate 
cordiality  which  I  always  found  in  him.  He  took  me  by  the 
hand,  and  said:  "How  are  you  feeling  this  winter,  Mr.  Sen- 
ator?" I  was  determined  there  should  be  no  misunder- 
standing. I  replied  at  once :  "Pretty  pugnacious,  I  confess, 
Mr.  President. ' '  The  tears  came  into  his  eyes,  and  he  said, 
grasping  my  hand  again:  "I  shall  always  love  you,  what- 
ever you  do." 

I  found  we  differed  widely  on  this  great  subject.  I  de- 
nounced with  all  the  vigor  of  which  I  was  capable  the 


/Treaty,  and  the  conduct  of  the  war  in  the  Philippine  Islandsf^, 
■in  the  Senate,  on  the  platform,  in  many  public  letters,  and;- 
in  articles  in  magazines  and  newspapers.  But  President 
McKinley  never  abated  one  jot  of  his  cordiality  toward  me. 
I  did  not,  of  course,  undertake  to  press  upon  him  my  advice 
in  matters  affecting  the  Philippine  Islands,  about  which  we 
differed  so  much.  But  he  continued  to  seek  it,  and  to  take 
it  in  all  other  matters  as  constantly  as  ever  before. 

In  order  that  it  may  not  be  supposed  that  I  deceived  my- 
self in  regard  to  President  McKinley 's  kindly  regard,  I  may 
perhaps  be  pardoned  for  saying  that  his  close  friend,  Sena- 
tor Hanna,  has  more  than  once  assured  me  that  McKinley 's 
love  for  me  was  never  abated,  and  for  citing  a  sentence  from 
an  article  by  Charles  Emory  Smith,  his  trusted  counsellor 
and  able  and  accomplished  Postmaster-General,  in  his  Cabi- 
net.    Mr.  Smith  says : 

"Senator  Hoar  was  the  earnest  foe  and  critic  of  President 
McKinley 's  policy.  But  President  McKinley  had  the  warm- 
est regard  and  consideration  for  him.  Nothing,  indeed,  in 
public  life  was  sweeter  than  the  sentiment  of  these  different 
and  differing  men  toward  each  other.  President  McKinley 
was  anxious  to  commission  Senator  Hoar  as  Minister  to  Eng- 
land, and  proffered  him  the  place.  It  was  without  any 
desire  to  remove  him  from  the  arena  of  contention— appre- 
hension of  such  a  reflection  restrained  the  proffer  for  a 
time— though  the  contention  had  not  then  been  fully  devel- 
oped. ' ' 

After  President  McKinley 's  death  I  expressed  the  public 
sorrow  and  my  own  in  an  address  to  a  vast  audience  of  the 
people  of  my  own  city  of  Worcester,  in  Mechanics'  Hall; 
and  again,  at  the  request  of  the  Eepublican  State  Commit- 
tee, at  the  Republican  State  Convention  shortly  afterward. 

I  have  reason  to  know  that  both  these  addresses  gave 
pleasure  to  many  of  the  lamented  President's  closest  and 
warmest  friends  throughout  the  country.  I  was  afterward 
invited  by  the  City  Government  of  Worcester  to  deliver  a 
historical  eulogy  on  President  McKinley  before  them.     That 


office,  it  seemed  to  me,  I  ought  to  decline.  It  was  not  be- 
cause I  was  behind  any  other  man  in  admiration  or  personal 
affection  for  that  lofty  and  beautiful  character.  But  I 
thought  that  address,  which  was  not  only  to  utter  the  voice 
of  public  sorrow,  but  to  give  a  careful  and  discriminating 
sketch  of  the  public  life  of  its  subject,  ought  to  be  delivered 
by  some  person  who  agreed  with  him  in  regard  to  the  most 
important  action  of  his  life.  I  could  not  well  pass  over  the 
Philippine  question.  I  could  not  well  speak  of  it  without 
stating  my  own  opinion.  I  could  not  undertake  to  state 
President  McKinley's  opinion,  conduct  or  policy,  without 
expressing  my  disapproval  of  it,  and  if  I  did  not  do  that,  I 
could  not  state  it  without  being  thought  by  those  who  heart- 
ily approved  it,  not  to  have  stated  it  justly  and  fairly. 

I  had  repeatedly  declared,  during  the  preceding  two  years, 
both  before  and  since  his  death,  my  highest  admiration  for 
the  intellectual  and  moral  qualities  of  my  beloved  friend, 
and  my  belief  that  he  would  have  a  very  high  place  in  his- 
tory among  the  best  and  ablest  men  of  the  country. 

But  I  thought  the  story  of  the  important  part  of  his  life 
should  be  told  from  his  point  of  view,  and  not  from  mine ; 
that  the  reasons  which  governed  him  should  be  stated  by  a 
person  sure  to  appreciate  them  fully.  If  a  great  Catholic 
Prelate  were  to  die,  his  eulogy  should  not  be  pronounced 
by  a  Protestant.  When  Dr.  Channing  died,  we  did  not  select 
a  Calvinist  minister  to  pronounce  his  funeral  sermon.  When 
Charles  Sumner  died  Mr.  Schurz  and  Mr.  Curtis,  not  some 
old  Whig,  and  not  some  earnest  supporter  of  General  Grant, 
pronounced  the  eulogy.  I  suppose  nobody  would  have 
dreamed  of  asking  a  Free  Trader  to  pronounce  the  eulogy 
on  President  McKinley  if  he  had  died  soon  after  the  begin- 
ning of  his  first  term.  So  I  declined  the  office.  The  City 
did  not  ask  anybody  else  to  fill  my  place,  or  perform  the 

I  will  not  now  renew  the  debate  about  our  treatment  of 
the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands.  My  opinion  has  not 
at  all  changed.  I  think  that  under  the  lead  of  Mabini  and 
Aguinaldo  and  their  associates,  but  for  our  interference,  a 
Eepublic  would  have  been  established  in  Luzon,  which  would 


have  compared  well  with  the  best  of  the  Eepublican  Govern- 
ments between  the  United  States  and  Cape  Horn.  For 
years  and  for  generations,  and  perhaps  for  centuries,  there 
wonld  have  been  turbulence,  disorder  and  revolution.  But 
in  her  own  way  Destiny  would  have  evolved  for  them  a  form 
of  civic  rule  best  adapted  to  their  need.  If  we  had  treated 
them  as  we  did  Cuba,  we  should  have  been  saved  the  public 
shame  of  violating  not  only  our  own  pledges,  but  the  rule 
of  conduct  which  we  had  declared  to  be  self-evident  truth 
in  the  beginning  of  our  history.  We  should  have  been  saved 
the  humiliation  of  witnessing  the  subjection  by  Great  Britain 
of  the  Boers  in  South  Africa,  without  a  murmur  of  disap- 
proval, and  without  an  expression  of  one  word  of  sympathy 
for  the  heroic  victims. 

My  term  as  Senator  expired  on  the  fourth  of  March,  1901. 
The  election  of  Senator  for  the  following  term  came  in  Jan- 
uary of  that  year.  I  differed  sharply  from  my  colleague, 
Mr.  Lodge,  in  this  whole  matter.  But  the  people  of  Massa- 
chusetts, with  the  generous  and  liberal  temper  which  ever 
distinguished  that  noble  Commonwealth,  desired  that  their 
Senators  should  act  upon  their  own  judgment,  without  any 

A  resolution  was  introduced  at  the  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  1899  by  Mr.  Mellen,  Democratic  member  from 
Worcester,  thanking  me  for  my  speech  in  opposition  to  the 
Spanish  Treaty,  endorsing  the  doctrine  of  that  speech,  and 
condemning  the  subjugation  of  the  Philippine  people  by 
force  of  arms. 

Charles  G.  Washburn,  Republican  member  from  Worces- 
ter, introduced  a  resolution  commending  my  speech,  and 
declaring  it  to  be  "A  speech  of  the  loftiest  patriotism  and 
eloquent  interpretation  of  the  high  conception  of  human 
freedom  which  the  fathers  sought  to  preserve  for  all  time 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

These  resolutions,  if  adopted,  would,  by  implication,  con- 
demn the  well-known  opinion  and  action  of  my  colleague. 
They  were  encountered  by  several  others,  none  of  which 
referred  to  either  Senator,  but  expressed  approval  of  the 


Spanish  Treaty.  One  of  them,  however,  presented  in  the 
House  by  Mr.  Mills  of  Newburyport,  declared  that  the 
Treaty  ought  to  be  ratified,  and  then  the  United  States 
should  fulfil  to  Porto  Eico  and  the  Philippine  Islands  the 
pledge  of  self-government  and  independence  made  to  Cuba. 
Very  wisely  all  these  resolutions  were  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Federal  Eelations,  who  reported  this  as  a  com- 
promise : 

Resolution  Reported  by  the  Committee  on  Federal  Rela- 
tions, OF  THE  Legislature,  March  29,  1899 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of 
the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  in  General  Court  as- 
sembled, that  Massachusetts,  ever  loyal  in  sympathy  and 
support  of  the  General  Government,  continues  her  unabated 
confidence  in  her  Senators,  and  with  a  just  pride  in  the  elo- 
quent and  memorable  words  they  have  uttered,  leaves  them 
untrammelled  in  the  exercise  of  an  independent  and  patriotic 
judgment  upon  the  momentous  questions  presented  for  their 

The  whole  matter  was  then  dropped.  But  the  Legisla- 
ture, and  the  generous  people  of  Massachusetts  whom  they 
represented,  acted  upon  the  spirit  of  the  Committee's  Reso- 
lution. I  was  reelected  without  opposition.  I  had  every 
Republican  vote,  and  many  Democratic  votes,  of  the  Legis- 
lature. My  affectionate  and  cordial  relations  with  my  brill- 
iant and  accomplished  colleague  have  never  suffered  an 
instant's  interruption. 

I  think  I  am  entitled  to  record,  however,  that  this  result 
was  not  accomplished  by  any  abatement  of  my  opposition  to 
the  policy  of  Administration  as  to  the  Philippine  Islands. 
I  made  a  great  many  speeches  within  a  few  weeks  of  the 
Presidential  election  in  1900.  The  members  of  the  Senate 
and  House,  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature,  who  were  to 
choose  a  Senator,  were  to  be  chosen  at  the  same  time.  I 
expressed  my  unchanged  and  earnest  opposition  of  disap- 
proval to  the  whole  business  at  length. 


In  speaking  of  the  habit  of  appealing  to  the  love  of  the 
flag  in  behalf  of  this  policy  of  conquest,  I  said  that  there 
was  but  one  symbol  more  sacred  than  the  American  flag. 
That  was  the  bread  and  wine  which  represented  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind;  adding,  that  a  man 
who  would  use  an  appeal  to  the  flag  in  aid  of  the  subjuga- 
tion of  an  unwilling  people,  would  be  capable  of  using  the 
sacramental  wine  for  a  debauch. 

The  week  before  the  election  of  Senator  came  on  a  bill 
for  the  reorganization  of  the  Army  was  before  the  Senate. 
That  contained  a  provision  for  increasing  the  Army  to  a 
hundred  thousand  men,  allowing  the  President,  however,  to 
reduce  it  to  seventy  thousand,  and  to  raise  it  again  if  neces- 
sary, so  it  would  in  his  discretion  be  elastic,  within  those 

Mr.  Bacon  of  Georgia,  who  seemed  to  be  the  leader  of  the 
Democrats  on  that  measure,  inquired  of  the  Republicans 
who  were  managing  the  bill,  how  many  men  they  needed, 
and  what  time  would  be  required  to  put  down  the  insurrec- 
tion in  the  Philippine  Islands.  Senator  Bacon  said  that 
they  would  give  them  the  hundred  thousand  men,  or  any 
force  they  might  demand  for  one  or  two  or  three  or 
five  years,  or  for  any  required  time.  But  they  were  un- 
willing to  give  the  President  the  power  of  expanding  and 
contracting  the  army  in  time  of  peace.  This  was  in  full 

I  followed  with  a  statement  that  I  had  no  objection  to 
giving  the  President  this  discretion,  and  did  not  disapprove 
the  bill  on  that  account.  I  thought  the  size  of  the  Army  in 
time  of  peace  should  be  left  largely  to  the  opinion  of  the 
experts,  especially  General  Miles,  the  famous  soldier  at  the 
head  of  the  Army,  who  thought  the  regular  Army  should 
consist  of  one  hundred  for  every  thousand  of  our  popula- 
tion. That  would  be  about  eighty  thousand  then,  and  be- 
fore long  would  require  a  hundred  thousand  men.  But  I 
said  I  was  opposed  to  raising  soldiers  to  carry  on  the  war 
in  the  Philippine  Islands.  The  only  way  to  stop  it  that  I 
knew  was  to  refuse  to  vote  for  the  Army  Bill.  I  voted 
against  it  solely  on  that  account. 



I  meant  that  if  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  were  to 

reelect  me,  no  man  shoiild  ever  have  it  to  say  that  I  had 
bought  my  reelection  by  silence  on  this  question,  or  con- 
cealed my  opinion,  however  extreme  it  might  be,  until  after 
election.  / 

After  my  election  I  delivered  an  address  before  the  two 
Houses  of  the  Legislature,  at  their  request,  and  was  received 
with  a  most  cordial  enthusiasm. 

Yet  I  think  that  if  any  leading  Republican  who  had  dif- 
fered from  me  on  this  question,  especially  Governor  Long, 
of  whose  brilliant  administration  of  the  Navy  the  people  of 
the  Commonwealth  were  so  proud,  had  pressed  his  candidacy 
for  the  office  in  opposition  to  me,  as  has  been  the  custom 
in  like  cases  in  other  States,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  he  would 
have  been  elected. 

I  have  no  doubt  I  should  have  found  Governor  Roger  Wol- 
cott  a  formidable  competitor,  if  he  had  lived  and  been  will- 
ing. Governor  Wolcott  had  made  a  statement  in  public, 
quietly  and  briefly,  as  was  his  wont,  expressing  his  sym- 
pathy with  me  when  the  question  of  the  Treaty  was  under 
debate.  Somewhat  later  he  made  a  statement  in  the  same 
way,  expressing  his  opinion  that  the  Administration  should 
be  supported.  Both  these  declarations  were  in  general 
terms.  They  were  not  inconsistent  with  each  other.  But 
death  arrested  the  honorable  and  useful  career  of  Roger 
Wolcott  when  he  was  still  in  the  prime  of  life,  in  the  strength 
of  his  noble  manhood,  a  strength  which  seemed  rapidly  en- 
larging and  growing  as  if  in  early  youth. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  subjugation  of  the  Philippine 
Islands,  the  acquisition  of  a  dependency  to  be  held  in  sub- 
jection by  the  United  States,  the  overthrow  of  the  great 
doctrine  that  Governments  rest  on  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned ;  that  all  the  painful  consequences  which  have  attended 
the  war  for  the  subjugation  of  that  distant  people,  would 
have  been  avoided  if  the  Democratic  opposition  had  been 
hearty  and  sincere.  The  same  spirit  that  defeated  the  Elec- 
tion Bill  in  spite  of  the  majority  in  its  favor,  would  have 
easily  accomplished  that  result.  The  Democratic  Party,  as 
a  party,  never  meant  business  in  this  matter.  I  do  not  deny 




tliat  many  Democrats— I  dare  sa;\  a  majority  of  the  Demo- 
crats—were as  earnestly  and  seriot.<ily  opposed  to  the  acqui- 
sition of  the  Philippine  Islands  as  x  was  myself.  But  they 
never  wielded  their  party  strength  in  opposition  to  it.  I 
said  to  one  eminent  Democratic  leader  early  in  the  year 
1900:  "There  is  one  way  in  which  you  can  put  an  end  to 
this  whole  business.  If  you  can  elect  a  Democratic  House 
it  will  have  power  under  the  Constitution  to  determine  the 
use  to  which  the  Army  shall  be  put.  In  that  way  you  com- 
pelled President  Hayes  to  refrain  from  further  support  by 
military  force  of  the  Republican  State  Governments  in  the 
South."  He  answered:  "Mr.  Hoar,  we  shall  never  do  any- 
thing as  radical  as  that." 

When  Senator  Bacon  made  the  offer  to  the  majority  of 
the  Senate  to  agree  to  give  them  all  the  military  power  they 
desired  for  the  suppression  of  the  resistance  in  the  Philip- 
pines for  as  long  a  time  as  they  should  think  it  necessary, 
the  entire  Democratic  Party  in  the  Senate  was  in  their  seats, 
and  there  was  no  expression  of  dissent. 

I  think  the  Democratic  Party  feared  the  fate  of  the  Fed- 
eralists who  opposed  the  War  of  1812,  and  of  the  Democrats 
who  opposed  the  War  for  the  Union  in  1861.  This  of  course 
in  the  nature  of  things  is  but  conjecture. 

Seventeen  of  the  followers  of  Mr.  Bryan  voted  for  the 
Treaty.  The  Treaty  would  have  been  defeated,  not  only 
lacking  the  needful  two  thirds,  but  by  a  majority  of  the  Sen- 
ate but  for  the  votes  of  Democrats  and  Populists. 

Senators  Morgan  and  Pettus  of  Alabama,  Senator  Mc- 
Laurin  of  South  Carolina,  Senator  McEnery  of  Louisiana, 
were  avowed  supporters  of  the  Treaty  from  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Bryan  in  the  height  of  the  contest  came  to  Washing- 
ton for  the  express  purpose  of  urging  upon  his  followers 
that  it  was  best  to  support  the  Treaty,  end  the  War,  and  let 
the  question  of  what  should  be  done  with  our  conquest  be 
settled  in  the  coming  campaign.  He  urged  upon  them,  as 
I  was  told  by  several  Democrats  at  the  time  who  did  not 
take  his  advice,  that  the  Democratic  Party  could  not  hope 
to  win  a  victory  on  the  financial  questions  at  stake  after 
they  had  been  beaten  on  them  in  a  time  of  adversity;  and 


that  they  must  have  this  issue  for  the  coming  campaign.  He 
was  besought  by  his  wiser  political  associates  to  go 
away  and  leave  the  Senate  to  settle  the  matter.  But  he  re- 

After  that  it  became  impossible,  not  only  to  defeat  the 
Treaty,  but  to  defeat  the  policy  which  had  inspired  it.  The 
Treaty  pledged  that  the  Philippine  Islands  should  be  gov- 
erned by  Congress.  It  undertook  obligations  which  require 
for  their  fulfilment,  at  least  ten  years '  control  of  the  Islands. 
It  put  the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands  in  the  attitude 
of  abandoning  the  Republic  they  had  formed,  and  of  ac- 
knowledging not  only  our  supremacy  but  that  they  were 
neither  entitled  or  fit  to  govern  themselves  or  to  carry  on 
the  war  which  had  unfortunately  broken  out.  I  do  not  mean 
to  imply  that,  as  I  have  said,  a  large  number  of  the  Demo- 
cratic Party  both  in  public  life  and  out  of  it,  were  not  sincere 
and  zealous  in  their  opposition  to  this  wretched  business. 
But  next  to  a  very  few  men  who  controlled  the  policy  of  the 
Republican  Party  in  this  matter,  Mr.  Bryan  and  his  follow- 
ers who  voted  in  the  Senate  for  the  Treaty  are  responsible 
for  the  results. 

I  have  been  blamed,  as  I  have  said  already,  because,  with 
my  opinions,  I  did  not  join  the  Democratic  Party  and  help 
to  elect  Mr.  Bryan.  I  disagreed  with  him  and  his  party  as 
to  every  other  issue  then  pending  before  the  American  peo- 
ple. So  differing  from  him,  I  found  nothing  in  his  attitude 
or  that  of  his  party,  to  induce  me  to  support  him,  or  even  to 
inspire  my  confidence  in  their  settlement  of  the  question  of 
Imperialism  or  expansion. 

In  my  opinion,  if  he  had  been  elected,  he  would  have 
accepted  the  result,  have  put  the  blame  for  it  on  his  prede- 
cessor in  office,  and  matters  would  have  gone  on  very  much 
as  they  have  under  Republican  control. 

I  have  been  told  by  many  Senators  who  voted  for  the 
Treaty,  that  they  regretted  that  vote  more  than  any  other 
act  of  their  lives.  Enough  Senators  have  said  this  to  me 
in  person,  not  only  to  have  defeated  the  Treaty,  but  if  they 
had  so  voted,  to  have  defeated  it  by  a  majority.  A  very 
eminent  Republican  Senator  told  me  that  more  than  twenty 


Senators,  who  voted  for  the  Treaty,  had  given  the  same 
assurance  to  him.  Bnt  they  are  very  unwilling  to  make  the 
declaration  public.  Several  gentlemen,  however,  have  pub- 
licly expressed  their  regret  for  their  vote,  as  is  well  known ; 
enough  to  have  changed  the  result. 

When  I  think  of  my  party,  whose  glory  and  whose  ser- 
vice to  Liberty  are  the  pride  of  my  life,  crushing  out  this 
people  in  their  effort  to  establish  a  Eepublic,  and  hear  people 
talking  about  giving  them  good  Grovernment,  and  that  they 
are  better  off  than  they  ever  were  under  Spain,  I  feel  very 
much  as  if  I  had  learned  that  my  father,  or  some  other  hon- 
ored ancestor,  had  been  a  slave-trader  in  his  time,  and  had 
boasted  that  he  had  introduced  a  new  and  easier  kind  of 
hand-cuffs  or  fetters  to  be  worn  by  the  slaves  during  the 
horrors  of  the  middle  passage. 

I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  a  respectable  or  intelligent 
Filipino  to-day,  unless  possibly  some  Macabebe  scout,  who 
would  not  get  rid  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
at  once,  if  he  could.  Buencamino  is  said  to  be  one  of  the 
ablest  of  their  public  men.  He  has  been  quoted  as  friendly 
to  us,  and  is  so.  There  is  no  doubt  that  he  has  so  expressed 
himself.  He  has  been  appointed  a  member  of  the  Taft  Grov- 
ernment, and  has  had  committed  to  him  the  responsible  and 
important  duty  of  deciding  the  appointments  to  the  offices 
which  are  to  be  filled  by  the  native  Filipinos,  under  the  ex- 
isting establishment.  It  is  said  by  both  sides  that  he  is 
crafty  and  selfish  and  ambitious,  and  that  he  likes  to  be  on 
the  side  that  is  strongest.  How  that  may  be,  I  do  not  know. 
But  he  will  not  even  pretend  to  accept  the  rule  of  the  United 
States  willingly.  He  appeared  as  a  witness  before  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  of  Representatives,  when  in  this  coun- 
try in  1902.  He  was  asked  whether  his  people  approved  the 
policy  of  the  Democratic  Party.  He  answered  emphati- 
cally: "No.  They  do  not  wish  to  have  the  United  States 
abandon  them  to  the  ambition  or  cupidity  of  foreign  Gov- 
ernments." But  he  added:  "Every  Filipino  is  in  favor 
of  the  policy  advocated  by  Senator  Hoar."  "What!"  said 
his  inquirer,  with  great  surprise,  "Do  you  mean  to  say  that 
every  Filipino  agrees  with  Senator  Hoar  in  his  views?" 


"Yes,"  replied  the  man,  with  great  emphasis;  "every  Fili- 
pino agrees  with  Senator  Hoar." 

I  mentioned  this  one  day  in  conversation  with  President 
Eoosevelt.  He  told  me  that  Buencamino  had  said  exactly 
the  same  thing  to  him. 

General  Miles  told  me  on  his  return  from  his  journey 
round  the  world  that  he  saw  many  leaders  of  the  Philippine 
people ;  that  they  spoke  of  me  with  great  regard  and  attach- 

June  17,  1902,  an  eminent  Hindoo  scholar,  published  a 
long  article  in  the  Japan  Times,  in  which  he  said: 

"The  speech  of  Mr.  Hoar,  though  an  address  to  his  own 
countrymen,  is  a  message  of  hope  to  the  whole  world  which 
sank  with  despondency  at  the  sight  of  Eepublican  America 
behaving  like  a  cruel,  tyrannical  and  rapacious  Empire  in 
the  Philippines  and  particularly  to  the  broken-hearted  peo- 
ple of  Asia  who  are  beginning  to  lose  all  confidence  in  the 
humanity  of  the  white  races.  Or  is  it  that  they  have  lost  it 
already?  Hence  all  papers  in  Asia  should  reprint  his 
speech,  translate  it,  and  distribute  it  broadcast.  Let  it  be 
brought  home  to  the  Asiatic  people  so  that  they  may  work 
and  worship  their  champion  and  his  forefathers.  Thanks 
to  the  awakening  in  America,  thanks  to  the  forces  that  are 
at  work  to  chase  out  the  degenerating,  demoralizing  passion 
for  territorial  aggrandizement  from  the  noble  American 
mind  and  save  it  for  itself  and  for  the  world  at  large  from 
the  cancer  of  Imperialism." 

I  am  afraid  I  am  committing  an  offence  against  good  taste 
in  repeating  such  laudations.  But  it  must  be  remembered 
that  a  public  man  who  has  to  encounter  so  much  bitter  revil- 
ing and  objurgation,  is  fairly  entitled  to  have  a  little  extrava- 
gance on  the  other  side  that  the  balance  may  be  even.  I 
would  rather  have  the  gratitude  of  the  poor  people  of  the 
Philippine  Islands,  amid  their  sorrow,  and  have  it  true  that 
what  I  may  say  or  do  has  brought  a  ray  of  hope  into  the 
gloomy  caverns  in  which  the  oppressed  peoples  of  Asia 
dwell,  than  to  receive  a  Ducal  Coronet  from  every  Monarch 


in  Europe,  or  command  the  applause  of  listening  Senates 
and  read  my  history  in  a  Nation 's  eyes. 

At  first  there  can  seem  nothing  more  absurd  than  the 
suggestion  of  my  Asiatic  friend  that  the  people  of  Asia 
should  worship  their  champion  and  his  ancestors.  But  on 
second  thought,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  while  no  human  being 
can  be  entitled  to  be  worshipped  by  any  other,  yet  that  we 
got  our  love  of  Liberty  from  our  ancestors,  or  at  any  rate 
that  is  where  I  got  mine,  and  that  they  are  entitled  to  all 
the  credit. 


Among  the  great  satisfactions  in  the  life  of  public  men  is 
that  of  sometimes  being  instrumental  in  the  advancement  to 
places  of  public  honor  of  worthy  men,  and  of  being  able  to 
have  a  great  and  salutary  influence  upon  their  lives.  I  have 
always  held  to  the  doctrine  of  what  is  called  Civil  Service 
Reform,  and  have  maintained  to  the  best  of  my  ability  the 
doctrine  of  the  absolute  independence  of  the  Executive  in 
such  matters,  as  his  right  to  disregard  the  wishes  or  opinions 
of  members  of  either  House  of  Congress,  and  to  make  his 
appointments,  esecutive  and  judicial,  without  advice,  or  on 
such  advice  as  he  shall  think  best.  But,  at  the  same  time, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Executive  must  depend  on 
some  advice  other  than  his  own,  to  learn  the  quality  of  men 
in  different  parts  of  this  vast  Republic,  and  to  learn  what 
will  be  agreeable  to  public  opinion  and  to  the  party  which  is 
administering  the  Government  and  is  responsible  for  its  ad- 
ministration. He  will,  ordinarily,  find  no  better  source  of 
such  information  than  in  the  men  whom  the  people  have 
shown  their  own  confidence  by  entrusting  them  with  the  im- 
portant function  of  Senator  or  Representative.  He  will 
soon  learn  to  know  his  men,  and  how  far  he  can  safely  take 
such  advice.  He  must  be  careful  to  see  to  it  that  he  is  not 
induced  to  build  up  a  faction  in  his  party,  or  to  fill  up  the 
public  offices  with  the  partisans  of  ambitious  but  unscrupu- 
lous politicians.  When  I  entered  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, before  the  Civil  Service  Reform  had  made  any  prog- 
ress, I  addressed  and  had  put  on  file  with  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  a  letter  in  which  I  said  that  I  desired  him  to 
understand  when  I  made  a  recommendation  to  him  of  any 
person  for  public  office,  it  was  to  be  taken  merely  as  my  opin- 



ion  of  the  merit  of  the  candidate,  and  not  as  an  expression 
of  a  personal  request ;  and  that  if  he  found  any  other  person 
who  would  in  his  judgment  be  better  for  the  public  service, 
I  hoped  he  would  make  the  selection  without  regard  to  my 

I  have  never  undertaken  to  use  public  office  as  personal 
patronage,  or  to  claim  the  right  to  dictate  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  or  that  the  Executive  was  not  entirely 
free,  upon  such  advice  as  he  saw  fit,  or  without  advice,  if  he 
thought  fit,  in  making  his  selection  for  public  office. 

It  has  been  my  good  fortune  to  have  influenced,  or  I 
think  I  may  fairly  say,  procured  the  appointment  to 
public  office  of  many  gentlemen  who  would  not  have  been 
appointed  without  my  active  efforts.  I  have  no  reason  to  be 
ashamed  of  one  of  the  list.  I  believe  that  the  following 
gentlemen,  beside  others  less  distinguished,  who  have  been 
very  satisfactory,  able  and  faithful  public  servants,  owe  their 
appointment  to  my  original  suggestion,  or  would  not  have 
been  appointed  without  my  earnest  efforts. 

Charles  Devens,  Attorney-General;  Alanson  W.  Beard, 
Collector  of  the  Port  of  Boston;  Horace  Gray,  first  to  the 
office  of  Reporter  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massachusetts, 
and  later  to  that  of  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States;  J.  Evarts  Greene,  Postmaster  of 
Worcester;  Thomas  L.  Nelson,  Judge  of  the  District  Court 
of  Massachusetts ;  Francis  C.  Lowell,  Judge  of  the  District 
Court  of  Massachusetts;  Howell  E.  Jackson,  Associate  Jus- 
tice of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States;  John  D. 
Washburn,  Minister  to  Switzerland. 

I  think  I  may  also  fairly  claim  that  the  election  of  William 
B.  Washburn  as  Governor  of  Massachusetts  was  due  not 
only  to  the  fact  that  I  originally  proposed  him  as  a  candi- 
date, but  to  my  active  efforts  in  the  campaign  which  preceded 
the  Convention  which  nominated  him. 

There  is  no  man  in  this  list  of  greater  ability  or  of  higher 
quality  of  manhood  than  Evarts  Greene.  Mr.  Greene  was 
compelled  by  the  illness  of  his  wife  to  remain  fast-bound  in 
one  spot,  instead  of  going  to  some  large  city  where  his  great 
talent  would  have  commanded  a  very  high  place  indeed  in 


his  profession  as  editor.  When  he  edited  the  Worcester 
Spy,  it  was  one  of  the  most  influential  Eepubliean  news- 
papers in  the  country.  The  Spy  got  into  pecuniary  diffi- 
culties. Mr.  Greene,  with  some  reluctance,  accepted  the 
office  of  Postmaster,  an  office  which,  according  to  usage  in 
such  cases,  was  in  my  gift. 

Just  before  Postmaster-General  Wanamaker,  whose  execu- 
tive ability  no  man  will  question,  went  out  of  office,  he  re- 
quested Mr.  Greene  to  send  to  the  Department  an  account  of 
the  improvements  he  had  made  and  proposed  in  the  post- 
office  service.  This  was  sent  in  a  circular  all  over  the  coun- 
try to  other  like  post-offices. 

Just  before  Mr.  Greene  died.  President  Eoosevelt  visited 
Worcester.  In  passing  the  post-office,  where  the  persons 
employed  in  the  service  were  collected,  he  stopped  and  said 
he  was  glad  to  see  "what  we  have  been  accustomed  to  con- 
sider the  record  post-office."  This,  as  may  well  be  believed, 
gave  Mr.  Greene  great  satisfaction. 


The  longer  I  live,  the  more  highly  I  have  come  to  value 
the  gift  of  eloquence.  Indeed,  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  hot 
the  single  gift  most  to  be  coveted  by  man.  It  is  hard,  per- 
haps impossible,  to  define,  as  poetry  is  impossible  to  define. 
To  be  a  perfect  and  consummate  orator  is  to  possess  the 
highest  faculty  given  to  man.  He  must  be  a  great  artist, 
and  more.  He  must  be  a  great  actor,  and  more.  He  must 
be  a  master  of  the  great  things  that  interest  mankind.  "What 
he  says  ought  to  have  as  permanent  a  place  in  literature  as 
the  highest  poetry.  He  must  be  able  to  play  at  will  on  the 
mighty  organ,  his  audience,  of  which  human  souls  are  the 
keys.  He  must  have  knowledge,  wit,  wisdom,  fancy,  imag- 
ination, courage,  nobleness,  sincerity,  grace,  a  heart  of  fire. 
He  must  himself  respond  to  every  emotion  as  an  ^olian 
harp  to  the  breeze.     He  must  have 

An  eye  that  tears  can  on  a  sudden  fill, 

And  lips  that  smile  before  the  tears  are  gone. 

He  must  have  a  noble  personal  presence.  He  must  have, 
in  perfection,  the  eye  and  the  voice  which  are  the  only  and 
natural  avenues  by  which  one  human  soul  can  enter  into  and 
subdue  another.  His  speech  must  be  filled  with  music,  and 
possess  its  miraculous  charm  and  spell, 

Which  the  posting  winds  recall, 
And  suspend  the  river's  fall. 

He  must  have  the  quality  which  Burke  manifested  when 
Warren  Hastings  said,  "I  felt,  as  I  listened  to  him,  as  if  I 
were  the  most  culpable  being  on  earth";  and  which  made 
Philip  say  of  Demosthenes,  "Had  I  been  there  he  would 
have  persuaded  me  to  take  up  arms  against  myself." 



He  has  a  present,  practical  purpose  to  accomplisli.  If  he 
fail  in  that  he  fails  utterly  and  altogether.  His  object  is  to 
convince  the  understanding,  to  persuade  the  will,  to  set 
aflame  the  heart  of  his  audience  or  those  who  read  what  he 
says.  He  speaks  for  a  present  occasion.  Eloquence  is  the 
feather  that  tips  his  arrow.  If  he  miss  the  mark  he  is  a 
failure,  although  his  sentences  may  survive  everything  else 
in  the  permanent  literature  of  the  language  in  which  he 
speaks.  What  he  says  must  not  only  accomplish  the  pur- 
pose of  the  hour,  hut  should  be  fit  to  be  preserved  for  all 
time,  or  he  can  have  no  place  in  literature,  and  a  small  and 
ephemeral  place  in  human  memory. 

The  orator  must  know  how  so  to  utter  his  thought  that  it 
will  stay.  The  poet  and  the  orator  have  this  in  common. 
Each  must  so  express  and  clothe  his  thought  that  it  shall 
penetrate  and  take  possession  of  the  soul,  and,  having  pene- 
trated, must  abide  and  stay.  How  this  is  done,  who  can 
tell?  Carlyle  defines  poetry  as  a  "sort  of  lilt."  Cicero 
finds  the  secret  of  eloquence  in  a 

Lepos  quidem  eeleritasque  et  brevitas. 

One  writer  lately  dead,  who  has  a  masterly  gift  of  noble 
and  stirring  eloquence,  finds  it  in  "a  certain  collocation  of 
consonants."  Why  it  is  that  a  change  of  a  single  word,  or 
even  of  a  single  syllable,  for  any  other  which  is  an  absolute 
synonym  in  sense,  would  ruin  the  best  line  in  Lycidas,  or 
injure  terribly  the  noblest  sentence  of  Webster,  nobody 
knows.  Curtis  asks  how  Wendell  Phillips  did  it,  and 
answers  his  own  question  by  asking  you  how  Mozart  did  it. 

When  I  say  that  I  am  not  sure  that  this  is  not  the  single 
gift  most  to  be  coveted  by  man,  I  may  seem  to  have  left  out 
the  moral  quality  in  my  conception  of  what  is  excellent.  But 
such  is  the  nature  of  man  that  the  loftiest  moral  emotions 
are  still  the  overmastering  emotions.  The  orator  that  does 
not  persuade  men  that  righteousness  is  on  his  side  will  sel- 
dom persuade  them  to  think  or  act  as  he  desires ;  and  if  he 
fail  in  that  he  fails  in  his  object;  and  the  orator  who  has  not 
in  fact  righteousness  on  his  side  will  in  general  fail  so  to 
persuade  them.    And  even  if  in  rare  cases  he  do  persuade 


Ms  audience,  he  does  not  gain  a  permanent  place  in  litera- 
ture. Bolingbroke 's  speeclies,  thougli  so  enthusiastically 
praised  by  the  best  judges,  have  perished  by  their  own 

Although  the  danger  of  the  Eepublic,  and  his  own,  still 
occupied  his  thoughts,  Cicero  found  time  in  his  old  age  to 
record,  at  the  request  of  his  brother  Quintus,  his  opinion,  de 
omni  ratione  dicendi.  It  is  not  likely  that  the  treatise  "de 
Oratore"  or  that  "de  Claris  Oratoribus"  will  ever  be 
matched  by  any  other  writer  on  this  fascinating  subject,  ex- 
cept the  brief  and  masterly  fragment  of  Tacitus. 

He  begins  by  inquiring  why  it  is  that,  when  so  many  per- 
sons strive  to  attain  the  gift  of  eloquence,  and  its  rewards 
of  fame  and  wealth  and  power  are  so  great,  the  number  of 
those  who  succeed  as  orators  is  so  small  in  comparison  with 
the  number  of  those  who  become  great  generals,  or  states- 
men, or  poets.  I  suppose  this  fact,  which  excited  the  won- 
der of  Cicero,  exists  in  our  country  and  our  time.  There 
is  a  foreign  country  which  is  to  us  as  a  posterity.  If  we 
reckon  those  Americans  only  as  great  orators  who  are  ac- 
cepted in  England  as  such,  or  who,  belonging  to  past  gen- 
erations are  so  accepted  now  by  their  own  countrymen,  the 
number  is  very  small.  A  few  sentences  of  Patrick  Henry 
are  preserved,  as  a  few  sentences  of  Lord  Chatham  are  pre- 
served. The  great  thoughts  of  Webster  justify,  in  the  esti- 
mation of  the  reader,  the  fame  he  enjoyed  with  his  own 
generation.  The  readers  of  Fisher  Ames— alas,  too  few — 
can  well  comprehend  the  spell  which  persuaded  an  angry 
and  reluctant  majority  to  save  the  treaty  to  which  the  nation 
had  pledged  its  faith,  and,  perhaps,  the  life  of  the  nation 
itself.  With  these  exceptions,  the  number  of  American  ora- 
tors who  will  live  in  history  as  orators  can  be  counted  on 
the  fingers  of  one  hand. 

I  have  never  supposed  myself  to  possess  this  gift.  The 
instruction  which  I  had  in  my  youth,  especially  that  at  Har- 
vard, either  in  composition  or  elocution,  was,  I  think,  not 
only  no  advantage,  but  a  positive  injury.  Besides  the  ab- 
sence of  good  training,  I  had  an  awkward  manner,  and  a 
harsh  voice.     Until  quite  late  in  life  I  never  learned  to  man- 


age  so  that  I  could  get  through  a  long  speech  without  serious 
irritation  of  the  throat.  But  I  have  had  good  opportunity  to 
hear  the  best  public  speaking  of  my  time.  I  have  heard  in 
England,  on  a  great  field  day  in  the  House  of  Commons,  Pal- 
merston,  Lord  John  Russell,  and  John  Bright,  and,  later,  Dis- 
raeli, Gladstone,  and  Bernal  Osborne.  I  have  heard  Spur- 
geon,  and  Bishop  Wilherforce,  and  Dr.  Guthrie  in  the  pulpit. 

At  home  I  have  heard  a  good  many  times  Daniel  "Webster, 
Edward  Everett,  Eufus  Choate,  Eobert  C.  Winthrop,  John 
P.  Hale,  Wendell  Phillips,  Charles  Sumner,  Eichard  H. 
Dana,  Ealph  Waldo  Emerson,  James  G.  Blaine,  Lucius  Q. 
C.  Lamar,  James  A.  Garfield,  William  McKinley,  William 
M.  Evarts,  Benjamin  F.  Thomas,  Pliny  Merrick,  Charles 
Devens,  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  and,  above  all,  Kossuth;  and 
in  the  pulpit,  James  Walker,  Edwards  A.  Park,  Mark  Hop- 
kins, Edward  Everett  Hale,  George  Putnam,  Starr  King, 
and  Henry  W.  Bellows.  So,  perhaps,  my  experience  and 
observation,  too  late  for  my  own  advantage,  may  be  worth 
something  to  my  younger  readers. 

I  am  not  familiar  with  the  books  which  have  been  lately 
published  which  give  directions  for  public  speaking.  So  I 
dare  say  that  what  I  have  to  advise  is  already  well  known 
to  young  men,  and  that  all  I  can  say  has  been  said  much 
better.  But  I  will  give  the  result  of  my  own  experience 
and  observation. 

In  managing  the  voice,  the  speaker  when  he  is  engaged 
in  earnest  conversation,  commonly  and  naturally  falls  into 
the  best  tone  and  manner  for  public  speaking.  Suppose  you 
are  sitting  about  a  table  with  a  dozen  friends,  and  some 
subject  is  started  in  which  you  are  deeply  interested.  You 
engage  in  an  earnest  and  serious  dialogue  with  one  of  them 
at  the  other  end  of  the  table.  You  are  perfectly  at  ease,  not 
caring  in  the  least  for  your  manner  or  tone  of  voice,  but  only 
for  your  thought.  The  tone  you  adopt  then  will  ordinarily 
be  the  best  tone  for  you  in  public  speaking.  You  can,  how- 
ever, learn  from  teachers  or  friendly  critics  to  avoid  any 
harsh  or  disagreeable  fashion  of  speech  that  you  may  have 
fallen  into,  and  that  may  be  habitual  to  you  in  private  con- 


Next.  Never  strain  your  vocal  organs  by  attempting  to 
fill  spaces  wHch.  are  too  large  for  you.  Speak  as  loudly  and 
distinctly  as  you  can  do  easily,  and  let  the  most  distant  por- 
tions of  your  audience  go.  You  will  find  in  that  way  very 
soon  that  your  voice  will  increase  in  compass  and  power,  and 
you  will  do  better  than  by  a  habit  of  straining  the  voice 
beyond  its  natural  capacity.  Be  careful  to  avoid  falsetto. 
Shun  imitating  the  tricks  of  speech  of  other  orators,  even 
of  famous  and  successful  orators.  These  may  do  for  them, 
but  not  for  you.  You  will  do  no  better  in  attempting  to  imi- 
tate the  tricks  of  speech  of  other  men  in  public  speaking  than 
in  private  speaking. 

Never  make  a  gesture  for  the  sake  of  making  one.  I  be- 
lieve that  most  of  the  successful  speakers  whom  I  know 
would  find  it  hard  to  tell  you  whether  they  themselves  make 
gestures  or  not,  they  are  so  absolutely  unconscious  in  the 
matter.  But  with  gestures  as  with  the  voice,  get  teachers  or 
friendly  critics  to  point  out  to  you  any  bad  habit  you  may 
fall  into.  I  think  it  would  be  well  if  our  young  public  speak- 
ers, especially  preachers,  would  have  competent  instructors 
and  critics  among  their  auditors,  after  they  enter  their  pro- 
fession, to  give  them  the  benefit  of  such  observations  and 
counsel  as  may  be  suggested  in  that  way.  If  a  Harvard 
professor  of  elocution  would  retain  his  responsibility  for  his 
pupils  five  or  ten  years  after  they  got  into  active  life  he 
would  do  a  great  deal  more  good  than  by  his  instruction  to 

So  far  we  have  been  talking  about  mere  manner.  The 
matter  and  substance  of  the  orator's  speech  must  depend 
upon  the  intellectual  quality  of  the  man. 

The  great  orator  must  be  a  man  of  absolute  sincerity. 
Never  advocate  a  cause  in  which  you  do  not  believe,  or  affect 
an  emotion  you  do  not  feel.  No  skill  or  acting  will  cover 
up  the  want  of  earnestness.  It  is  like  the  ointment  of  the 
hand  which  bewrayeth  itself. 

I  shall  be  asked  how  I  can  reconcile  this  doctrine  with  the 
practice  of  the  law.  It  will  be  said  the  advocate  must  often 
defend  men  whom  he  believes  to  be  guilty,  or  argue  to  the 
court  propositions  he  believes  to  be  unsound.     This  objec- 


tion  will  disappear  if  we  consider  what  exactly  is  the  func- 
tion of  the  advocate  in  our  system  of  administering  justice. 
I  suppose  it  is  needless  to  argue  to  persons  of  American 
or  English  birth  that  our  system  of  administering  justice  is 
safer  for  the  innocent  and,  on  the  whole,  secures  the  punish- 
ment of  guilt  and  secures  private  right  better  than  any  other 
that  now  exists  or  that  ever  existed  among  men.  The  chief 
distinction  of  the  system  we  have  inherited  from  England 
consists  in  two  things :  first,  the  function  of  the  advocate,  and 
second,  that  cases  are  decided  not  upon  belief,  but  upon 
proof.  It  has  been  found  that  court  or  jury  are  more  likely 
to  get  at  truth  if  they  have  the  aid  of  trained  officers  whose 
duty  it  shall  be  to  collect  and  present  all  the  arguments  on 
each  side  which  ought  to  be  considered  before  the  court  or 
jury  reach  the  decision.  The  man  who  seems  clearly  guilty 
should  not  be  condemned  or  punished  unless  every  consider- 
ation which  may  tend  to  establish  innocence  or  throw  doubt 
upon  guilt  has  been  fully  weighed.  The  unassisted  tribunal 
will  be  quite  likely  to  overlook  these  considerations.  Public 
sentiment  approves  the  judgment  and  the  punishment  in  the 
case  of  John  W.  Webster.  But  certainly  he  should  never 
have  been  convicted  without  giving  the  fullest  weight  to  his 
previous  character  and  to  the  slightness  of  the  temptation 
to  the  commission  of  such  a  crime,  to  the  fact  that  the  evi- 
dence was  largely  circumstantial,  to  the  doubt  of  the  identity 
of  the  body  of  the  victim,  and  to  the  fact  that  the  means 
or  instrument  of  the  crime  which  ordinarily  must  be  alleged 
and  proved  in  cases  of  murder  could  not  be  made  certain, 
and  could  not  be  set  forth  in  the  indictment.  The  question 
in  the  American  or  English  court  is  not  whether  the  accused 
be  guilty.  It  is  whether  he  be  shown  to  be  guilty,  by  legal 
proof,  of  an  offence  legally  set  forth.  It  is  the  duty  of  the 
advocate  to  perform  his  office  in  the  mode  best  calculated  to 
cause  all  such  considerations  to  make  their  due  impression. 
It  is  not  his  duty  or  his  right  to  express  or  convey  his  indi- 
vidual opinion.  On  him  the  responsibility  of  the  decision 
does  not  rest.  He  not  only  has  no  right  to  accompany  the 
statement  of  his  argument  with  any  assertion  as  to  his  indi- 
vidual belief,  but  I  think  the  most  experienced  observers  will 


agree  that  sucli  expressions,  if  habitual,  tend  to  diminish 
and  not  to  increase  the  just  influence  of  the  lawyer.  There 
never  was  a  weightier  advocate  before  New  England  juries 
than  Daniel  Webster.  Yet  it  is  on  record  that  he  always 
carefully  abstained  from  any  positiveness  of  assertion.  He 
introduced  his  weightiest  arguments  with  such  phrases  as, 
"It  will  be  for  the  jury  to  consider,"  "The  Court  will 
judge,"  "It  may,  perhaps,  be  worth  thinking  of,  gentle- 
men, ' '  or  some  equivalent  phrase  by  which  he  kept  scrupu- 
lously off  the  ground  which  belonged  to  the  tribunal  he  was 
addressing.  The  tricks  of  advocacy  are  not  only  no  part  of 
the  advocate's  duties,  but  they  are  more  likely  to  repel  than 
to  attract  the  hearers.  The  function  of  the  advocate  in  the 
court  of  justice,  as  thus  defined  and  limited,  is  tainted  by 
no  insincerity  or  hypocrisy.  It  is  as  respectable,  as  lofty, 
and  as  indispensably  necessary  as  that  of  the  judge  himself. 

In  my  opinion,  the  two  most  important  things  that  a  young 
man  can  do  to  make  himself  a  good  public  speaker  are : 

First.  Constant  and  careful  written  translations  from 
Latin  or  Greek  into  English. 

Second.     Practice  in  a  good  debating  society. 

It  has  been  said  that  all  the  greatest  Parliamentary  ora- 
tors of  England  are  either  men  whom  Lord  North  saw,  or 
men  who  saw  Lord  North— that  is,  men  who  were  conspicu- 
ous as  public  speakers  in  Lord  North's  youth,  his  contem- 
poraries, and  the  men  who  saw  him  as  an  old  man  when  they 
were  young  themselves.  This  would  include  Bolingbroke 
and  would  come  down  only  to  the  year  of  Lord  John  Rus- 
sell's birth.  So  we  should  have  to  add  a  few  names,  espe- 
cially Gladstone,  Disraeli,  John  Bright,  and  Palmerston. 
There  is  no  great  Parliamentary  orator  in  England  since 
Gladstone  died.  I  once,  a  good  many  years  ago,  studied 
the  biographies  of  the  men  who  belonged  to  that  period  who 
were  famous  as  great  orators  in  Parliament  or  in  Court,  to 
find,  if  I  could,  the  secret  of  their  power.  With  the  excep- 
tion of  Lord  Erskine  and  of  John  Bright,  I  believe  every 
one  of  them  trained  himself  by  careful  and  constant  trans- 
lation from  Latin  or  Greek,  and  frequented  a  good  debating 
society  in  his  youth. 


Brougliam  trained  himself  for  extemporaneous  speaking 
in  tlie  Speculative  Society,  the  great  theatre  of  debate  for 
the  University  of  Edinburgh.  He  also  improved  his  Eng- 
lish style  by  translations  from  Greek,  among  which  is  his 
well-known  version  of  the  "Oration  on  the  Crown." 

Canning's  attention,  while  at  Eton,  was  strongly  turned 
to  extemporaneous  speaking.  They  had  a  debating  society, 
in  which  the  Marquis  of  Wellesley  and  Charles  Earl  Grey 
had  been  trained  before  him,  in  which  they  had  all  the  forms 
of  the  House  of  Commons— Speaker,  Treasury  benches,  and 
an  Opposition.  Canning  also  was  disciplined  by  the  habit 
of  translation. 

Curran  practised  declamation  daily  before  a  glass,  recit- 
ing passages  from  Shakespeare  and  the  best  English  orators. 
He  frequented  the  debating  societies  which  then  abounded 
in  London.  He  failed  at  first,  and  was  ridiculed  as  ' '  Orator 
Mum. ' '  But  at  last  he  surmounted  every  difficulty.  It  was 
said  of  him  by  a  contemporary:  "He  turned  his  shrill  and 
stumbling  brogue  into  a  flexible,  sustained,  and  finely  modu- 
lated voice ;  his  action  became  free  and  forcible ;  he  acquired 
perfect  readiness  in  thinking  on  his  legs ;  he  put  down  every 
opponent  by  the  mingled  force  of  his  argument  and  wit ;  and 
was  at  last  crowned  with  the  universal  applause  of  the  so- 
ciety and  invited  by  the  president  to  an  entertainment  in 
their  behalf. "  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  seen,  on  any  good 
authority,  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  writing  translations 
from  Latin  or  Greek,  but  he  studied  them  with  great  ardor 
and  undoubtedly  adopted,  among  the  methods  of  perfecting 
his  English  style,  the  custom  of  students  of  his  day  of  trans- 
lation from  these  languages. 

Jeffrey  joined  the  Speculative  Society,  in  Edinburgh,  in 
his  youth.  His  biographer  says  that  it  did  more  for  him 
than  any  other  event  in  the  whole  course  of  his  education. 

Chatham,  the  greatest  of  English  orators,  if  we  may  judge 
by  the  reports  of  his  contemporaries,  trained  himself  for 
public  speaking  by  constant  translations  from  Latin  and 
Greek.  The  education  of  his  son,  the  younger  Pitt,  is  well 
known.  His  father  compelled  him  to  read  Thucydides  into 
English  at  sight,  and  to  go  over  it  again  and  again,  until 



lie  had  got  the  best  possible  rendering  of  the  Grreek  into 

Macaulay  belonged  to  the  Cambridge  Union,  where,  as  in 
the  society  of  the  same  name  at  Oxford,  the  great  topics  of 
the  day  were  discussed  by  men,  many  of  whom  afterward 
became  famous  statesmen  and  debaters  in  the  Commons. 

Young  Murray,  afterward  Lord  Mansfield,  translated  Sal- 
lust  and  Horace  with  ease;  learned  great  part  of  them  by 
heart;  could  converse  fluently  in  Latin;  wrote  Latin  prose 
correctly  and  idiomatically,  and  was  specially  distinguished 
at  Westminster  for  his  declamations.  He  translated  every 
oration  of  Cicero  into  English  and  back  again  into  Latin. 

Fox  can  hardly  have  been  supposed  to  have  practised 
much  in  debating  societies,  as  he  entered  the  House  of  Com- 
mons when  he  was  nineteen  years  old.  But  it  is  quite  prob- 
able that  he  was  drilled  by  translations  from  Latin  and 
Greek  into  English ;  and  in  the  House  of  Commons  he  had  in 
early  youth  the  advantage  of  the  best  debating  society  in  the 
world.  It  is  said  that  he  read  Latin  and  Greek  as  easily  as 
he  read  English.  He  himself  said  that  he  gained  his  skill 
at  the  expense  of  the  House,  for  he  had  sometimes  tasked 
himself  during  the  entire  session  to  speak  on  every  question 
that  came  up,  whether  he  was  interested  in  it  or  not,  as  a 
means  of  exercising  and  training  his  faculties.  This  is  what 
made  him,  according  to  Burke,  "rise  by  slow  degrees  to  be 
the  most  brilliant  and  accomplished  debater  the  world  ever 
saw. ' ' 

Sir  Henry  Bulwer's  "Life  of  Palmerston"  does  not  tell 
us  whether  he  was  trained  by  the  habit  of  writing  transla- 
tions or  in  debating  societies.  But  he  was  a  very  eager 
reader  of  the  classics.  There  is  little  doubt,  however,  con- 
sidering the  habit  of  his  contemporaries  at  Cambridge,  and 
that  he  was  ambitious  for  public  life,  and  represented  the 
University  of  Cambridge  in  Parliament  just  after  he  became 
twenty-one,  that  he  belonged  to  a  debating  society  and  that 
he  was  drilled  in  English  composition  by  translation  from 
the  classics. 

Gladstone  was  a  famous  debater  in  the  Oxford  Union,  as 
is  well  known,  and  was  undoubtedly  in  the  habit  of  writing 


translations  from  Greek  and  Latin,  of  which  he  was  always 
so  passionately  fond.  He  says  in  his  paper  on  Arthur  Hal- 
lam  that  the  Eton  debating  club  known  as  the  Society  sup- 
plied the  British  Empire  with  four  Prime  Ministers  in  four- 
score years. 

The  value  of  the  practice  of  translation  from  Latin  or 
Greek  into  English,  in  getting  command  of  good  English 
style,  in  my  judgment,  can  hardly  be  stated  too  strongly. 
The  explanation  is  not  hard  to  find.  You  have  in  these  two 
languages  and  especially  in  Latin,  the  best  instrument  for 
the  most  precise  and  most  perfect  expression  of  thought. 
The  Latin  prose  of  Tacitus  and  Cicero,  the  verse  of  Virgil 
and  Horace,  are  like  a  Greek  statue,  or  an  Italian  cameo— 
you  have  not  only  exquisite  beauty,  but  also  exquisite  pre- 
cision. You  get  the  thought  into  your  mmd  with  the  accu- 
racy and  precision  of  the  words  that  express  numbers  in  the 
multiplication  table.  Ten  times  one  are  ten— not  ten  and 
one  one-millionth.  Having  got  the  idea  into  your  mind  with 
the  precision,  accuracy,  and  beauty  of  the  Latin  expression, 
you  are  to  get  its  equivalent  in  English.  Suppose  you  have 
knowledge  of  no  language  but  your  own.  The  thought 
comes  to  you  in  the  mysterious  way  in  which  thoughts  are 
born,  and  struggles  for  expression  in  apt  words.  If  the 
phrase  that  occurs  to  you  does  not  exactly  fit  the  thought, 
you  are  almost  certain,  especially  in  speaking  or  rapid  com- 
position, to  modify  the  thought  to  fit  the  phrase.  Your  sen- 
tence commands  you,  not  you  the  sentence.  The  extem- 
porary speaker  never  gets,  or  easily  loses,  the  power  of 
precise  and  accurate  thinking  or  statement,  and  rarely  at- 
tains a  literary  excellence  which  gives  him  immortality.  But 
the  conscientious  translator  has  no  such  refuge.  He  is  con- 
fronted by  the  inexorable  original.  He  cannot  evade  or 
shirk.  He  must  try  and  try  and  try  again  until  he  has  got 
the  exact  thought  expressed  in  its  English  equivalent.  This 
is  not  enough.  He  must  get  an  English  expression  if  the 
resources  of  the  language  will  furnish  it,  which  will  equal 
as  near  as  may  be  the  dignity  and  beauty  of  the  original. 
He  must  not  give  you  pewter  for  silver,  or  pinchbeck  for 
gold,  or  mica  for  diamond.     This  practice  will  soon  give  him 


ready  command  of  the  great  riches  of  his  own  noble  English 
tongue.  It  will  give  a  habitual  nobility  and  beauty  to  his 
own  style.  The  best  word  and  phrase  will  come  to  him  spon- 
taneously when  he  speaks  and  thinks.  The  processes 
of  thought  itself  will  grow  easier.  The  orator  will  get 
the  afiSuence  and  abundance  which  characterize  the  great 
Italian  artists  of  the  Middle  Ages,  who  astonish  us  as 
much  by  the  amount  and  variety  of  their  work  as  by  its  ex- 

The  value  of  translation  is  very  different  from  that  of 
original  written  composition.     Cicero  says: 

"Stilus  optimus  et  praestantissimus  dicendi  effector  ac 
magister. ' ' 

Of  this  I  am  by  no  means  sure.  If  you  write  rapidly  you 
get  the  habit  of  careless  composition.  If  you  write  slowly 
you  get  the  habit  of  slow  composition.  Each  of  these  is  an 
injury  to  the  style  of  the  speaker.  He  cannot  stop  to  cor- 
rect or  scratch  out.  Cicero  himself  in  a  later  passage  states 
his  preference  for  translation.  He  says  that  at  first  he  used 
to  take  a  Latin  author,  Ennius  or  Gracchus,  and  get  the 
meaning  into  his  head,  and  then  write  it  again.  But  he  soon 
found  that  in  that  way  if  he  used  again  the  very  words  of 
his  author  he  got  no  advantage,  and  if  he  used  other  lan- 
guage of  his  own,  the  author  had  already  occupied  the 
ground  with  the  best  expression,  and  he  was  left  with  the 
second  best.  So  he  gave  up  the  practice  and  adopted  in- 
stead that  of  translating  from  the  Greek. 

But  to  go  back  to  what  makes  an  orator.  As  I  have  said, 
his  object  is  to  excite  the  emotions  which,  being  excited,  will 
be  most  likely  to  impel  his  audience  to  think  or  act  as  he 
desires.  He  must  never  disgust  them,  he  must  never  excite 
their  contempt.  He  can  use  to  great  advantage  the  most 
varied  learning,  the  profoundest  philosophy,  the  most  com- 
pelling logic.  He  must  master  the  subject  with  which  he 
has  to  deal,  and  he  must  have  knowledge  adequate  to  illus- 
trate and  adorn  it.  When  every  other  faculty  of  the  orator 
is  acquired,  it  sometimes  almost  seems  as  if  voice  were  nine- 


tenths,  and  everything  else  but  one-tenth,  of  the  consummate 
orator.  It  is  impossible  to  overrate  the  importance  to  his 
purpose  of  that  matchless  instrument,  the  human  voice. 

The  most  fastidious  critic  is  by  no  means  the  best  judge, 
seldom  even  a  fairly  good  judge,  of  the  public  speaker.  He 
is  likely  to  be  a  stranger  to  the  emotion  which  the  orator  in- 
spires and  excites.  He  is  likely  to  fall  into  mistakes  like 
that  which  Goldwin  Smith  makes  about  Patrick  Henry.  Mr. 
Smith  ridicules  Henry's  speech  and  action  and  voice.  The 
emotion  which  the  great  Virginian  stirred  in  the  breasts  of 
his  backwoodsmen  seems  very  absurd  to  this  cultured  Eng- 
lishman. The  bowings  and  changes  of  countenance  and  ges- 
ticulating of  the  orator  seem  to  him  like  the  cheapest  acting. 
Yet  to  us  who  understand  it,  it  does  not  seem  that  Patrick 
Henry  in  the  old  church  at  Richmond  need  yield  the  palm 
to  Chatham  in  St.  Stephen's  Chapel,  either  for  the  grandeur 
of  his  theme  or  of  his  stage,  or  the  sublimity  of  his  elo- 

Matthew  Arnold  had  the  best  pair  of  intellectual  eyes  of 
our  time.  But  he  sometimes  made  a  like  mistake  as  a  critic 
of  poetry.  He  speaks  slightingly  of  Emerson's  Fourth  of 
July  Ode— 

Oh  tenderly  the  haughty  day 
Fills  his  blue  urn  with  fire ; 
One  morn  is  in  the  mighty  heaven, 
And  one  in  our  desire. 

What  did  the  Englishman  know  of  the  Fourth  of  July  emo- 
tion which  stirred  all  America  in  the  days  when  the  country 
had  just  escaped  destruction,  and  was  entering  upon  its  new 
career  of  freedom  and  of  glory  I  What  could  he  understand 
of  that  feeling,  full  of  the  morning  and  of  the  springtime, 
which  heard  the  cannon  boom  and  the  bells  ring,  with  stir- 
ring and  quickened  pulse,  in  those  exultant  days?  Surely 
there  never  was  a  loftier  stroke  than  that  with  which  the 
New  England  poet  interpreted  to  his  countrymen  the  feeling 
of  that  joyous  time— the  feeling  which  is  to  waken  again 
when  the  Fourth  of  July  comes  round  on  many  anniver- 
saries : 


Oh  tenderly  the  haughty  day 

Fills  his  blue  urn  with  fire ; 
One  morn  is  in  the  mighty  heaven, 

And  one  in  our  desire. 

It  is  often  said  that  if  a  speecli  read  well  it  is  not  a  good 
speecli.  There  may  be  some  truth  in  it.  The  reader  cannot, 
of  course,  get  the  impression  which  the  speaker  conveys  by 
look  and  tone  and  gesture.  He  lacks  that  marvellous  influ- 
ence by  which  in  a  great  assembly  the  emotion  of  every  indi- 
vidual soul  is  multiplied  by  the  emotion  of  every  other.  The 
reader  can  pause  and  dwell  upon  the  thought.  If  there  be 
a  fallacy,  he  is  not  hurried  away  to  something  else  before  he 
can  detect  it.  So,  also,  more  careful  and  deliberate  criti- 
cism will  discover  offences  of  style  and  taste  which  pass 
unheeded  in  a  speech  when  uttered.  But  still  the  great 
oratorio  triumphs  of  literature  and  history  stand  the  test  of 
reading  in  the  closet,  as  well  as  of  hearing  in  the  assembly. 
Would  not  Mark  Antony's  speech  over  the  dead  body  of 
Caesar,  had  it  been  uttered,  have  moved  the  Eoman  popu- 
lace as  it  moves  the  spectator  when  the  play  is  acted,  or  the 
solitary  reader  in  his  closet?  Does  not  Lord  Chatham's  "I 
rejoice  that  America  has  resisted ' '  read  well ?  Do  not  Sheri- 
dan's  great  perorations,  and  Burke's,  in  the  Impeachment 
of  Warren  Hastings,  read  well?  Does  not  "Liberty  and 
Union,  Now  and  Forever !"  read  well?  Does  not  "Give  me 
Liberty  or  Give  me  Death!"  read  well?  Does  not  Fisher 
Ames's  speech  for  the  treaty  read  well?  Do  not  Everett's 
finest  passages  read  well? 

There  are  examples  of  men  of  great  original  genius  who 
have  risen  to  lofty  oratory  on  some  great  occasion  who 
had  not  the  advantage  of  familiarity  with  any  great  author. 
But  they  are  not  only  few  in  number,  but  the  occasions  are 
few  when  they  have  risen  to  a  great  height.  In  general 
the  orator,  whether  at  the  Bar,  or  in  the  pulpit,  or  in  public 
life,  who  is  to  meet  adequately  the  many  demands  upon  his 
resources,  must  get  familiarity  with  the  images  and  illustra- 
tions he  wants,  and  the  resources  of  a  fitting  diction,  by  soak- 
ing his  mind  in  some  great  authors  which  will  alike  satisfy 


and  stimulate  his  imagination,  and  supply  him  with  a  lofty 
expression.  Of  these  I  suppose  the  best  are,  by  common 
consent,  the  Bible,  Shakespeare,  and  Milton.  It  is  a  maxim 
that  the  pupil  who  wishes  to  acquire  a  pure  and  simple  style 
should  give  his  days  and  nights  to  Addison.  But  there  is 
a  lack  of  strength  and  vigor  in  Addison,  which  perhaps  pre- 
vents his  being  the  best  model  for  the  advocate  in  the  court- 
house or  the  champion  in  a  political  debate.  I  should  rather, 
for  myself,  recommend  Robert  South  to  the  student.  If  the 
speaker,  whose  thought  have  weight  and  vigor  in  it,  can  say 
it  as  South  would  have  said  it,  he  may  be  quite  sure  that  his 
weighty  meaning  will  be  expressed  alike  to  the  mind  of  the 
people  and  the  apprehension  of  his  antagonist. 

There  is  one  great  difference  between  the  condition  of  the 
American  orator  and  that  of  the  orator  of  antiquity.  The 
speaker,  in  the  old  time,  addressed  an  audience  about  to  act 
instantly  upon  the  emotions  or  convictions  he  had  himself 
caused.  Or  he  spoke  to  a  Judge  who  was  to  give  no  reason 
for  his  opinion.  The  sense  of  public  responsibility  scarcely 
existed  in  either.  The  speech  itself  perished  with  the  occa- 
sion, unless,  as  in  some  few  instances,  the  orator  preserved 
it  in  manuscript  for  a  curious  posterity.  Even  then  the  best 
of  them  had  discovered  that  not  eloquence,  but  wisdom,  is 
the  power  by  which  states  grow  and  flourish. 

"Omnia  plena  consiliorum,  inania  verborum. 

"Quid  est  tam  furiosum  quam  verborum  vel  optimorum 
atque  ornatissimorum  sonitus  inanis  nulla  subjecta  sententia 
nee  sciential" 

Cicero's  oratory  is  to  excite  his  hearers,  whether  Judges 
or  popular  assembly,  for  the  occasion.  Not  so  in  general 
with  our  orator.  The  auditor  is  ashamed  of  excitement.  He 
takes  the  argument  home  with  him :  He  sleeps  on  it.  He 
reads  it  again  in  the  newspaper  report.  He  hears  and  reads 
the  other  side.  He  discusses  with  friends  and  antagonists. 
He  feels  the  responsibility  of  his  vote.  He  expects  to  have 
to  justify  it  himself.  Even  the  juryman  hears  the  sober 
statement  of  the  Judge,  and  talks  the  case  over  with  his  asso- 
ciates of  the  panel  in  the  quiet  seclusion  of  the  jury-room. 


The  Judge  himself  must  state  the  reasons  for  his  opinions, 
which  are  to  he  read  by  a  learned  and  critical  profession  and 
by  posterity.  The  speaker's  argument  must  be  sounded,  and 
rung,  and  tested,  and  tried  again  and  again,  before  the  au- 
ditor acts  upon  it.  Our  people  hear  some  great  orators  as 
they  witness  a  play.  The  delight  of  taste,  even  intellec- 
tual gratification,  caused  by  what  is  well  said,  is  one  thing. 
Conviction  is  quite  another.  The  printing-press  and 
the  reporter,  the  consultation  in  the  jury-room,  the  re- 
flection in  the  Judge's  chamber,  the  delay  of  the  election 
to  a  day  long  after  the  speech,  are  protections  against 
the  mischief  of  mere  oratory,  which  the  ancients  did  not 

I  heard  a  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1860,  on  the 
paper  duties,  in  which  Lord  John  Russell,  Palmerston,  Glad- 
stone, and  John  Bright  took  part.  Gladstone 's  part  was  not 
very  prominent.  I  now  remember  little  that  he  said.  His 
image,  as  it  then  appeared,  is  effaced  by  his  later  appear- 
ance on  a  much  greater  occasion.  Bright  spoke  admirably, 
both  in  manner  and  matter.  He  was  an  Independent,  though 
giving  general  support  to  the  measures  of  the  Government, 
in  which  Palmerston  and  Lord  Russell  were  the  leaders.  He 
complained  bitterly  of  their  acquiescence  in  what  he  thought 
the  unconstitutional  attitude  of  the  House  of  Lords,  in  re- 
fusing to  consent  to  the  abolition  of  the  paper  duties,  foE 
which  the  House  of  Commons  had  voted.  But  the  Govern- 
ment, though  they  had  tried  to  abolish  the  duty,  were  very 
glad  to  hold  on  to  the  revenue.  Bright  had  none  of  the  Eng- 
lish hesitation,  and  frequent  punctuation  of  sentences  with— 
"er"—"er"— which  has  led  some  one,  speaking  of  English 
orators,  to  say  that  "to  err"  is  human.  He  reminded  me 
in  general,  in  look,  voice,  and  manner,  of  the  late  Richard 
H.  Dana,  although  he  sometimes  threw  more  passion  and 
zeal  into  his  speech  than  Dana  ever  indulged.  Periods  fol- 
lowed each  other  in  easy  and  rapid  flow.  He  had  a  fine  voice 
and  delivery,  easily  filling  the  hall  from  his  place  below  the 

Palmerston,  in  his  jaunty  and  off-hand  way,  rebuked 
Bright  for  desiring  to  make  the  House  of  Commons  adopt  a 


resolution  whicli  would  only  show  its  own  helplessness.  On 
the  whole,  he  seemed  to  me  to  get  the  better  of  the  debate. 
Bright  could  not  persuade  the  House,  or  the  people  of  Eng- 
land, to  make  a  great  constitutional  question  out  of  the  paper 
duties,  especially  after  the  powerful  speech  of  Lord  Lynd- 
hurst,  who,  then  more  than  ninety  years  old,  argued  for  the 
side  of  the  Lords  with  a  power  that  no  other  speaker  on  the 
subject  rivalled. 

I  heard  Gladstone  again  in  1871,  when  there  was  a  great 
struggle  between  him  and  Disraeli  over  the  Parliamentary 
and  Municipal  Elections  Bill.  I  visited  the  House  with 
Thomas  Hughes,  to  whom  I  was  indebted  for  much  courtesy 
while  in  London,  and  had  a  seat  on  the  floor  just  below  the 
gallery,  where  a  few  strangers  are,  or  were  then,  admitted 
by  special  card  from  the  Speaker. 

Bernal  Osborne,  Sir  Michael  Hicks-Beach,  Sir  Stafford 
Northcote,  Gladstone,  and  Disraeli  took  part  in  the  debate. 
The  bill  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Gladstone's  Government. 
The  question  that  night  was  on  a  motion  to  strike  out  the 
provision  for  the  secret  ballot ;  so  the  opponents  of  the  Gov- 
ernment had  the  close  in  support  of  the  motion.  The  report 
of  Hansard  purports  to  be  in  the  first  person.  But  I  can 
testify  from  memory  that  it  is  by  no  means  verbally  accu- 
rate. I  have  no  doubt  the  speeches  were  taken  down  in 
short-hand.  The  phonetic  system  was  then  used.  But  the 
report  seems  to  be  about  like  those  which  our  good  short- 
hand reporters  used  to  make  before  that  invention.  The 
speeches  are  well  worth  studying  by  a  person  who  wishes  to 
get  an  idea  of  the  intellectual  and  literary  quality  of  these 
champions.  There  is  no  great  passage  in  any  one  of  them. 
But  the  capacity  and  quality  of  power  appear  distinctly. 
Osborne  was  full  of  a  shrewd  and  delightful  wit,  without  the 
vitriolic  flavor  which  often  appears  in  the  sarcasm  of  Dis- 
raeli. Gladstone  showed  his  power  of  elevating  the  discus- 
sion to  a  lofty  plane,  which  his  opponent  never  reached, 
although  Disraeli  launched  at  him  many  a  keen  shaft  from 
below.  Mr.  Hughes  sat  by  me  most  of  the  night,  and  occa- 
sionally brought  and  introduced  to  me  some  eminent  person 
whom  he  thought  I  would  like  to  know. 


The  members  of  our  National  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
however  turbulent  or  disorderly,  never  would  submit  to  the 
fashion  of  treating  a  speaker  whom  they  do  not  want  to  hear, 
which  prevails  in  the  House  of  Commons.  "WTien  Mr.  Glad- 
stone got  through,  the  night  was  far  spent,  and  the  House 
evidently  wanted  to  hear  Disraeli,  then  vote  and  go  home. 
Mr.  Plunket,  a  member  for  the  University  of  Dublin,  who 
seemed  an  intelligent  and  sensible  man,  rose,  wishing  to  cor- 
rect a  statement  of  Mr.  Gladstone's,  which  he  thought  had 
done  him  an  injustice.  Disraeli  rose  about  the  same  time, 
but  bowed  and  gave  way.  The  House  did  not  like  it.  Poor 
Plunket's  voice  was  drowned  in  the  storm  of  shouts— "Sit 
down.  Sit  down.  Dizzy,  Dizzy, ' '  in  which  my  friend,  Mr. 
Hughes,  although  of  Gladstone's  party,  joined  at  the  top  of 
his  lungs.  !•  think  the  Bedlam  lasted  five  minutes.  But 
Plunket  stood  his  ground  and  made  his  correction. 

Although  Bernal  Osborne  was  a  man  of  great  wit  and 
sense,  and  Sir  Stafford  Northcote  and  Sir  Michael  Hicks- 
Beach  were  then,  as  the  latter  is  now,  very  eminent  charac- 
ters, yet  the  only  speakers  who  belonged  to  the  rank  of  the 
great  orators  were  Gladstone  and  Disraeli.  I  will  not  under- 
take to  add  another  description  of  Gladstone  to  the  many 
with  which  every  reader  of  mine  is  thoroughly  familiar. 
The  late  Dr.  Bellows  resembled  him  very  nearly,  both  in  his 
way  of  reasoning  and  his  manner  of  speech.  Persons  who 
have  heard  Dr.  Bellows  at  his  best  will  not  deem  this  com- 
parison unworthy. 

Gladstone  was  terribly  in  earnest.  He  began  his  speech 
by  a  compliment  to  Northcote,  his  opponent,  for  whom  he 
had  shown  his  esteem  by  sending  him  to  the  United  States 
as  one  of  the  Joint  High  Commission  to  make  the  Alabama 
Treaty.  But  when  Mr.  Gladstone  was  well  under  way.  Sir 
Stafford  interposed  a  dissent  from  something  he  said  by  call- 
ing out,  "No,  no"— a  very  frequent  practice  in  the  House. 
Gladstone  turned  upon  him  savagely,  with  a  tone  of  anger 
which  I  might  almost  call  furious :  ' '  Can  the  gentleman  tol- 
erate no  opinion  but  his  own,  that  he  interjects  his  audible 
contradiction  into  the  middle  of  my  sentence  1 ' '  The  House 
evidently  did  not  like  it.    Hughes,  who  agreed  with  Glad- 


stone,  said  to  me :  "What  a  pity  it  is  that  he  cannot  control 
his  temper ;  that  is  his  great  fault. ' ' 

There  are  no  passages  in  this  speech  of  Gladstone  that 
can  be  cited  as  among  the  best  examples  of  the  great  style  of 
the  orator.  But  there  are  several  that  give  a  good  idea  of 
his  manner,  and  show  something  of  the  argument  in  two  or 
three  sentences:  "I  am  not  at  all  ashamed  of  having  said, 
and  I  say  it  again,  that  this  is  a  choice  of  evils.  I  do  not 
say  that  the  proposal  for  a  secret  ballot  is  open  to  no  objec- 
tions whatever.  I  admit  that  open  voting  has  its  evils  as 
well  as  its  merits.  One  of  these  merits  is  that  it  enables  a 
man  to  discharge  a  noble  duty  in  the  noblest  possible  man- 
ner. But  what  are  its  demerits?  That  by  marking  his  vote 
you  expose  the  voter  to  be  tempted  through  his  cupidity  and 
through  his  fears.  We  propose,  by  secret  voting,  to  greatly 
diminish  the  first  of  these,  and  we  hope  to  take  away  the 
second.  We  do  not  believe  that  the  disposition  to  bribe  can 
operate  with  anything  like  its  present  force  when  the  means 
of  tracing  the  action  of  the  man  bribed  are  taken  away,  be- 
cause men  will  not  pay  for  that  they  do  not  know  they  will 
ever  receive." 

"I  think  it  is  too  late  for  the  honorable  gentleman  to 
say,  'We  are  passing  through  an  experiment;  wait  for  more 
experiment.'  "  "We  have  already  been  debating  this  sub- 
ject for  forty  years;  we  have  plenty  of  time  on  our  hands; 
it  is  a  Godsend  to  have  anything  to  fill  up  our  vacant  hours ; 
and  therefore  let  us  postpone  the  subject  in  order  that  it  may 
be  dealt  with  in  future  years." 

The  great  quality  of  Gladstone,  as  of  Sumner,  is  his  pro- 
found seriousness.  He  makes  the  impression  on  his  hear- 
ers, an  impression  made,  but  not  so  strongly,  upon  his  read- 
ers, that  the  matter  he  is  discussing  is  that  upon  which  the 
foundations  of  heaven  and  earth  rest. 

It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  hold  Disraeli  cheap.  He 
turned  the  tables  upon  Osborne,  who  had  gone  into  several, 
what  Disraeli  called,  archseological  details,  with  respect  to 
the  antiquity  of  the  ballot,  and  had  cited  a  proclamation  of 
Charles  I.  prohibiting  the  ballot  in  all  corporations,  either 
in  the  city  of  London  or  elsewhere,  which  Disraeli  said  "was 


done  with  the  admirable  view  of  identifying  the  opinions 
of  those  who  sit  on  this  side  of  the  House  with  the  political 
sentiments  of  that  monarch.  But  there  was  another  asser- 
tion of  the  principle  that  the  ballot  should  be  open  that  the 
gentleman  has  not  cited.  That  occurred  in  the  most  mem- 
orable Parliament  that  ever  sat  in  England— the  Long  Par- 
liament. .  .  .  They  wished  it  therefore  to  be  exercised,  not 
to  satisfy  the  self-complacency  of  the  individual,  but  with 
due  respect  for  common-sense  and  the  public  opinion  of  the 
country,  and  influenced  by  all  those  doctrines  and  all  that 
discipline  of  party  which  they  believed  to  be  one  of  the  best 
securities  for  public  liberty. ' ' 

Grladstone  showed  in  his  speech  the  profounder  reflection 
on  the  general  subject,  the  more  philosophy,  and  the  intenser 
earnestness ;  Disraeli  showed  quickness  of  wit,  a  ready  com- 
mand of  his  resources,  ability  for  subtle  distinctions,  and 
glimpses  of  his  almost  Satanic  capacity  for  mocking  and 
jeering.  He  describes  Mr.  Gladstone  most  felicitously  as 
' '  inspired  by  a  mixture  of  genius  and  vexation. ' '  He  speaks 
of  his  majority  as  a  "mechanical  majority,  a  majority  the 
result  of  heedlessness  of  thought  on  the  part  of  members 
who  were  so  full  of  other  questions  that  they  gave  pledges 
in  favor  of  the  ballot  without  due  consideration." 

He  said:  "There  is  a  celebrated  river,  which  has  been 
the  subject  of  political  interest  of  late,  and  with  which  we 
are  all  acquainted.  It  rolls  its  magnificent  volume,  clear  and 
pellucid,  in  its  course;  but  it  never  reaches  the  ocean;  it 
sinks  into  mud  and  morass.  And  such  will  be  the  fate  of 
this  mechanical  majority.  The  conscience  of  the  country  is 
against  it.  It  is  an  old-fashioned  political  expedient; 
it  is  not  adapted  to  the  circumstances  which  we  have  to 
encounter  in  the  present,  and  because  it  has  no  real  foun- 
dation of  truth  or  policy,  it  will  meet  with  defeat  and  dis- 
comfiture. ' ' 

Gladstone  had,  what  is  quite  rare,  and  what  no  famous 
American  orator  that  I  now  think  of,  except  Choate  and 
Evarts,  have  had— a  tendency  to  diffuse  and  somewhat  in- 
volved speech,  and  at  the  same  time  a  gift  of  compact  epi- 
grammatic utterance  on  occasions.    When  Mr.  Evarts,  who 


was  my  near  relative,  and  a  man  witli  whom  I  could  take  a 
liberty,  came  into  the  Senate,  I  said  to  him  that  we  should 
have  to  amend  the  rules  so  that  a  motion  to  adjourn  would 
be  in  order  in  the  middle  of  a  sentence ;  to  which  he  replied 
that  he  knew  of  nobody  in  this  country,  who  objected  to  long 
sentences,  except  the  criminal  classes. 

Gladstone  was  the  last  of  a  school  of  oratory,  and  the  last 
of  our  time— I  hope  not  for  all  time— of  a  school  of  states- 
men. When  he  entered  upon  a  discussion  in  Parliament, 
or  on  the  hustings,  he  elevated  it  to  the  highest  possible 
plane.  The  discussion  became  alike  one  of  the  highest  moral 
principles  and  the  profoundest  political  philosophy.  He 
seemed  to  be  speaking  as  our  statesmen  of  the  Revolutionary 
time,  and  the  time  of  framing  our  Constitution.  He  used  to 
speak  to  all  generations  alike.  What  he  had  to  say  would 
have  been  true  and  apt  and  fit  to  be  uttered  in  the  earlier 
days  of  Athens  or  of  Rome,  and  true  and  apt  and  fit  to  be 
uttered  for  thousands  of  years  to  come.  He  had,  in  a  large 
measure,  a  failing  which  all  Englishmen  have,  and  always 
had:  the  notion  that  what  is  good  for  England  is  good  for 
humanity  at  large.  His  morality  and  his  statesmanship 
were  insular.  Still  it  was  a  lofty  morality  and  a  lofty  ideal 
statesmanship.  It  was  sincere.  What  he  said,  that  he  be- 
lieved. It  came  straight  from  his  heart,  and  he  kindled  in 
the  bosoms  of  his  listeners  the  ardor  of  his  own  heart.  He 
was  not  afraid  of  his  ideals. 

I  heard  Dr.  Guthrie  in  Edinburgh  in  1860.  It  was  a  hot 
day.  My  companion  was  just  getting  well  from  a  danger- 
ous attack  of  bleeding  at  the  lungs.  We  made  our  way  with 
difficulty  into  the  crowded  church.  The  people  were,  almost 
all  of  them,  standing.  We  were  obliged,  by  my  friend's 
condition,  to  get  out  again  before  the  sermon.  I  remember, 
however,  the  old  man's  attitude,  and  his  prayer  in  the  racy, 
broad  Scotch,  the  most  tender,  pathetic,  and  expressive  lan- 
guage on  earth  for  the  deeper  emotions  as  well  as  for  humor. 
I  wonder  if  my  readers  have  ever  seen  the  version  of  the 

"Frae  Hebrew  Intil  Scottis,"  by  P.  Hately  Waddell, 
LL.D.,  Minister,  Edinburgh,  1891. 


If  not,  and  they  will  get  it,  a  new  delight  is  in  store  for 
them,  and  they  will  know  something  of  the  diction  of  Dr. 

He  once  began  a  prayer,  "0  Lord,  it  is  a  braw  thing  to 
loe  ye.    But  it  is  a  better  (bitter)  thing  to  hate  ye." 

The  beauty  of  this  dialect  is  that  while  it  is  capable  alike 
of  such  tenderness,  and  such  lofty  eloquence,  and  such  ex- 
quisite and  delicate  humor,  it  is,  like  our  Saxon,  incapable 
of  falsetto,  or  of  little  pomposities. 

I  heard  Lyman  Beecher,  then  a  very  old  man,  before  a 
meeting  of  the  members  of  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  in 
1852,  when  the  measure  known  as  the  Maine  Liquor  Law  was 
pending.  He  bore  unmistakable  marks  of  advanced  age. 
But  there  were  one  or  two  passages  that  showed  the  power 
of  the  orator,  one  especially  in  which  he  described  the  beauty 
and  delight  of  our  homes,  and  intemperance  threatening 
them  with  its  waves  like  a  great  sea  of  fire. 

I  saw  Henry  Ward  Beecher  several  times  in  private,  and 
had  pleasant  talks  with  him.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say  I  never 
heard  him  speak,  so  far  as  I  can  now  remember,  on  any  occa- 
sion when  he  put  forth  his  power.  But  if  half  that  is  told 
of  his  speeches,  during  the  Civil  War,  some  of  them  to  hos- 
tile and  angry  audiences,  be  true,  he  was  a  consummate  mas- 
ter. One  story  is  told  of  him  which  I  suppose  is  true,  and, 
if  it  be  true,  ranks  him  as  one  of  the  greatest  masters  of  his 
art  that  ever  lived.  It  is  said  that  he  was  speaking  to  a 
great  crowd  in  Birmingham,  or  perhaps  Liverpool,  which 
constantly  goaded  him  with  hostile  interruptions,  so  that  he 
had  great  difficulty  in  getting  on.  At  last  one  fellow  pro- 
voked the  cheers  and  applause  of  the  audience  by  crying 
out— "Why  didn't  you  put  down  the  Eebellion  in  sixty  days 
as  you  said  you  would?"  Beecher  paused  a  moment  until 
they  became  still,  in  their  eagerness  to  hear  his  reply,  and 
then  hurled  back— "We  should  if  they  had  been  English- 
men. ' '  The  fierce,  untamed  animal  hesitated  a  moment  be- 
tween anger  and  admiration,  and  then  the  English  love  of 
fair  play  and  pluck  prevailed,  and  the  crowd  cheered  him 
and  let  him  go  on. 


But  any  man  who  reads  Beecher's  delightful  "Letters 
from  the  White  Mountains,"  or  some  of  his  sermons,  and 
imagines  his  great  frame,  and  far-sounding  voice,  will  get 
a  conception  of  his  power  to  play  on  the  feelings  of  men, 
of  his  humor,  and  pathos,  and  intense  conviction,  and  rapid- 
ity in  passing  from  one  emotion  to  another,  and  will  under- 
stand him. 

I  heard  Eufus  Choate  a  great  many  times.  I  heard  nearly 
all  the  speeches  given  in  Brown's  Life;  and  I  heard  him 
a  great  many  times  at  the  Bar,  both  before  juries  and  the  full 
Court.  He  is  the  only  advocate  I  ever  heard  who  had  the 
imperial  power  which  would  subdue  an  unwilling  and  hos- 
tile jury.  His  power  over  them  seemed  like  the  fascination 
of  a  bird  by  a  snake.  Of  course,  he  couldn't  do  this  with 
able  Judges,  although  all  Judges  who  listened  to  him  would, 
I  think,  agree  that  he  was  as  persuasive  a  reasoner  as  ever 
lived.  But  with  inferior  magistrates  and  juries,  however 
intelligent,  however  determined  they  were  in  a  made-up 
opinion,  however  on  their  guard  against  the  charmer,  he  was 
almost  irresistible.  There  are  very  few  important  cases 
recorded  that  Choate  lost.  Non  supples,  sed  magister  aut 
dominus  videretur  esse  judicum. 

Choate 's  method  was  pure  persuasion.  He  never  ap- 
pealed to  base  motives,  nor  tried  to  awake  coarse  prejudices 
or  stormy  passions.  He  indulged  in  no  invective.  His  wit 
and  sarcasm  and  ridicule  amused  the  victim  almost  as  much 
as  it  amused  the  bystander.  He  had  the  suaviloquentia 
which  Cicero  attributes  to  Cornelius.  There  was  never  a 
harsh  note  in  his  speech. 

Latrantur  enim  jam  quidam  oratores,  non  loquuntur. 

When  he  was  confronted  with  some  general  rule,  or  some 
plain  fact,  he  had  a  marvellous  art  of  subtle  distinction.  He 
showed  that  his  client,  or  witness,  or  proposition,  belonged 
to  a  class  of  itself.  He  invested  it  with  a  distinct  and  in- 
tense personality.  He  held  up  his  fact  or  his  principle 
before  the  mind  of  the  Court  and  the  jury.  He  described 
and  pictured  it.  He  brought  out  in  clear  relief  what  distin- 
guished it  from  any  other  fact  or  proposition  whatever.    If 


necessary,  he  would  almost  have  made  a  jury,  before  he  was 
through,  think  the  Siamese  twins  did  not  look  alike,  and 
possibly  that  they  never  could  have  been  born  of  the  same 

He  had  a  voice  without  any  gruff  or  any  shrill  tones.  It 
was  like  a  sweet,  yet  powerful  flute.  He  never  strained  it 
or  seemed  to  exert  it  to  its  fullest  capacity.  I  do  not  know 
any  other  public  speaker  whose  style  resembled  his  in  the 
least.  Perhaps  Jeremy  Taylor  was  his  model,  if  he  had  any 
model.  The  phraseology  with  which  he  clothed  some  com- 
monplace or  mean  thought  or  fact,  when  he  was  compelled 
to  use  commonplace  arguments,  or  to  tell  some  common  story, 
kept  his  auditors  ever  alert  and  expectant.  An  Irishman, 
who  had  killed  his  wife,  threw  away  the  axe  with  which 
Choate  claimed  the  deed  was  done,  when  he  heard  somebody 
coming.  This,  in  Choate 's  language,  was  "the  sudden  and 
frantic  ejaculation  of  the  axe."  Indeed  his  speech  was  a 
perpetual  surprise.  Whether  you  liked  him  or  disliked  him, 
you  gave  him  your  ears,  erect  and  intent.  He  used  manu- 
script a  great  deal,  even  in  speaking  to  juries.  When  a 
trial  was  on,  lasting  days  or  weeks,  he  kept  pen,  ink,  and 
paper  at  hand  in  his  bedroom,  and  would  often  get  up  in  the 
middle  of  the  night  to  write  down  thoughts  that  came  to 
him  as  he  lay  in  bed.  He  was  always  careful  to  keep 
warm.  It  was  said  he  prepared  for  a  great  jury  argument 
by  taking  off  eight  great  coats  and  drinking  eight  cups  of 
green  tea. 

When  I  was  a  young  lawyer  in  Worcester  I  had  something 
to  do  before  the  Court  sitting  in  the  fourth  story  of  the  old 
stone  court  house  in  Boston.  I  finished  my  business  and 
had  just  time  to  catch  the  train  for  home.  As  I  came  down 
the  stairs  I  passed  the  door  of  the  court-room  where  the 
United  States  Court  was  sitting.  The  thick  wooden  door 
was  open,  and  the  opening  was  closed  by  a  door  of  thin 
leather  stretched  on  a  wooden  frame.  I  pulled  it  open 
enough  to  look  in,  and  there,  within  three  feet  of  me,  was 
Choate,  addressing  a  jury  in  a  case  of  marine  insurance, 
where  the  defence  was  the  unseaworthiness  of  the  vessel.  I 
had  just  time  to  hear  this  sentence,  and  shut  the  door  and 


hurry  to  my  train:  "She  went  down  the  harbor,  painted  and 
perfidious— a  coffin,  but  no  ship." 

I  hear  now,  as  if  still  in  the  eager  throng,  his  speech  in 
Faneuil  Hall  during  the  Mexican  War.  He  demanded  that 
we  should  bring  back  our  soldiers  to  the  line  we  claimed  as 
our  rightful  boundary,  and  let  Mexico  go.  He  said  we  had 
done  enough  for  glory,  and  that  we  had  humiliated  her 

"The  Mexican  maiden,  as  she  sits  with  her  lover  among 
the  orange-groves,  will  sing  to  her  guitar  the  story  of  these 
times— 'Ah,  woe  is  me,  Alhama,'  for  a  thousand  years  to 
come. ' ' 

Choate,  like  other  good  orators,  and  like  some  great  poets, 
notably  "Wordsworth,  created  the  taste  which  he  satisfied. 
His  dramatic  action,  his  marvellous  and  strange  vocabulary, 
his  oriental  imagination,  his  dressing  the  common  and  mean 
things  of  life  with  a  poetic  charm  and  romance,  did  not  at 
once  strike  favorably  the  taste  of  his  Yankee  audiences. 
Webster  and  Everett  seem  to  have  appreciated  him  from  the 
first.  But  he  was,  till  he  vindicated  his  title  to  be  a  great 
lawyer,  rather  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  Chief  Justice  Shaw,  of 
whose  consternation  and  amazement,  caused  by  the  strange 
figure  that  appeared  in  his  court-room,  many  queer  stories 
used  to  be  told.  But  the  young  men  and  the  people  liked 

"Non  probantur  hsec  senibus— ssepe  videbam  cum  invi- 
dentem  tum  etiam  irascentem  stomachantem  Philippum— 
sed  mirantur  adulescentes  multitude  movetur." 

It  was  a  curious  sight  to  see  on  a  jury  twelve  hard-headed 
and  intelligent  countrymen— farmers,  town  officers,  trustees, 
men  chosen  by  their  neighbors  to  transact  their  important 
affairs— after  an  argument  by  some  clear-headed  lawyer  for 
the  defence,  about  some  apparently  not  very  doubtful  trans- 
action, who  had  brought  them  all  to  his  way  of  thinking,  and 
had  warned  them  against  the  wiles  of  the  charmer,  when 
Choate  rose  to  reply  for  the  plaintiff— to  see  their  look  of 
confidence  and  disdain— "You  needn't  try  your  wiles  upon 



me."  The  shoulder  turned  a  little  against  the  speaker— the 
averted  eye— and  then  the  change ;  first,  the  changed  posture 
of  the  hody ;  the  slight  opening  of  the  mouth ;  then  the  look, 
first,  of  curiosity,  and  then  of  doubt,  then  of  respect;  the 
surrender  of  the  eye  to  the  eye  of  the  great  advocate ;  then 
the  spell,  the  charm,  the  great  enchantment— till  at  last,  jury 
and  audience  were  all  swept  away,  and  followed  the  con- 
queror captive  in  his  triumphal  march. 

He  gesticulated  with  his  whole  body.  Wendell  Phillips 
most  irreverently  as  well  as  most  unjustly  compared  him  to 
a  monkey  in  convulsions.  His  bowings  down  and  straight- 
ening himself  again  were  spoken  of  by  another  critic,  not 
unfriendly,  as  opening  and  shutting  like  a  jack-knife.  His 
curly  black  hairs  seemed  each  to  have  a  separate  life  of  its 
own.  His  eyes  shone  like  coals  of  fire.  There  is  a  passage 
of  Everett's  which  well  describes  Choate,  and  is  also  one  of 
the  very  best  examples  of  Everett,  who,  with  all  his  fertility 
of  original  genius,  borrowed  so  much,  and  so  enriched  and 
improved  everything  that  he  borrowed.  Cicero  said  of 
Antonius : 

' '  Omnia  veniebant  Antonio  in  mentem ;  eaque  suo  quaeque 
loco,  ubi  plurimum  proficere  et  valere  possent,  ut  ab  impera- 
tore  eqiiites  pedites  levis  armatura,  sic  ab  illo  in  maxume 
opportunis  orationis  partibus  conlocabantur. " 

Now  see  what  Everett  does  with  this  thought  in  his  eu- 
logy, spoken  in  Faneuil  Hall,  the  week  after  Choate 's  death : 

"He  is  sometimes  satisfied,  in  concise  epigrammatic 
clauses,  to  skirmish  with  his  light  troops,  and  drive  in  the 
enemy's  outposts.  It  is  only  on  fitting  occasions,  when  great 
principles  are  to  be  vindicated,  and  solemn  truths  told,  when 
some  moral  or  political  Waterloo  or  Solf erino  is  to  be  fought, 
that  he  puts  on  the  entire  panoply  of  his  gorgeous  rhetoric. 
It  is  then  that  his  majestic  sentences  swell  to  the  dimensions 
of  his  majestic  thought;  then  it  is  that  we  hear  afar  off  the 
awful  roar  of  his  rifled  ordnance ;  and  when  he  has  stormed 
the  heights,  and  broken  the  centre,  and  trampled  the  squares, 
and  turned  the  staggering  wings  of  the  adversary,  that  he 


sounds  Ms  imperial  clarion  along  the  whole  line  of  battle, 
and  moves  forward  with  all  his  hosts,  in  one  overwhelming 
charge. ' ' 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  advocates  of  my  day  was  Sid- 
ney Bartlett.  He  seldom  addressed  juries,  and  almost  never 
public  assemblies.  He  was  a  partner  of  Chief  Justice  Shaw 
before  1830.  He  argued  cases  before  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  and  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  Massa- 
chusetts after  he  was  ninety.  He  cared  for  no  other  audi- 
ence. He  had  a  marvellous  compactness  of  speech,  and  a 
marvellous  sagacity  in  seeing  the  turning-point  of  a  great 
question.  He  found  the  place  where  the  roads  diverged, 
got  the  Court's  face  set  in  the  right  direction,  and  then 
stopped.  He  would  argue  in  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  a  point 
where  some  powerful  antagonist  like  Curtis  or  Choate  would 
take  hours  to  reply.  I  once  told  him  that  his  method  of 
argument  was  to  that  of  ordinary  lawyers  like  logarithms 
to  ordinary  mathematics.  He  seemed  pleased  with  the  com- 
pliment, and  said,  "Yes,  I  know  I  argue  over  their  heads. 
The  Chief  Justice  told  me  he  wished  I  would  talk  a  little 
longer. "  I  do  not  know  that  Bartlett  ought  to  be  reckoned 
among  orators.  But  he  had  a  great  power  of  convincing, 
and  giving  intellectual  delight  to  minds  capable  of  appre- 
ciating his  profound  and  inexorable  logic. 

Edward  Everett  seems  to  me,  on  the  whole,  our  best  ex- 
ample of  the  orator,  pure  and  simple.  "Webster  was  a  great 
statesman,  a  great  lawyer,  a  great  advocate,  a  great  public 
teacher.  To  all  these  his  matchless  oratory  was  but  an  in- 
strument and  incident. 

Choate  was  a  great  winner  of  cases,  and  as  relaxation  he 
gave,  in  the  brief  vacations  of  an  overworked  professional 
life  (he  once  defined  a  lawyer's  vacation  as  the  time  after  he 
has  put  a  question  to  a  witness  while  he  is  waiting  for  an 
answer),  a  few  wonderful  literary  and  historical  addresses. 
He  gave  a  brief  period  of  brilliant  but  most  unwilling  ser- 
vice in  each  House  of  Congress.  He  made  some  powerful 
political  speeches  to  popular  audiences.  But  his  heart  was 
always  in  the  court-house.    No  gambler  ever  hankered  for 


the  feverish  delight  of  the  gaining  table  as  Choate  did  for 
that  absorbing  game,  half  chance,  half  skill,  where  twelve 
human  dice  must  all  turn  up  toge,ther  one  way,  or  there  is 
no  victory. 

But  Everett  is  always  the  orator.  He  was  a  clergyman 
a  little  while.  He  was  a  Greek  professor  a  little  while.  He 
was  a  College  President  a  little  while.  He  was  a  Minister  to 
England  a  little  while.  He  was  Eepresentative  in  Congress 
and  Senator.  He  was  Governor  of  the  Conunonwealth.  In 
these  places  he  did  good  service  enough  to  make  a  high  repu- 
tation for  any  other  man.  Little  of  these  things  is  remem- 
bered now.  He  was  above  all  things— I  am  tempted  to  say, 
above  all  men — the  foremost  American  orator  in  one  class. 

There  is  one  function  of  the  orator  peculiar  to  our  country, 
and  almost  wholly  unknown  elsewhere.  That  is  the  giving 
utterance  to  the  emotion  of  the  people,  whether  of  joy  or 
sorrow,  on  the  occasions  when  its  soul  is  deeply  stirred— 
when  some  great  man  dies,  or  there  is  a  great  victory  or 
defeat,  or  some  notable  anniversary  is  celebrated.  This 
ofBce  was  filled  by  other  men,  on  some  few  occasions  by 
Daniel  Webster  himself,  but  by  no  man  better  than  by  Ever- 
ett. A  Town,  or  City,  or  State  is  very  human.  In  sorrow  it 
must  utter  its  cry  of  pain;  in  victory,  its  note  of  triumph. 
As  events  pass,  it  must  pronounce  its  judgment.  Its  con- 
stant purpose  must  be  fixed  and  made  more  steadfast  by 
expression.  It  must  give  voice  to  its  love  and  its  approba- 
tion and  its  condemnation.  It  must  register  the  high  and 
low  water  mark  of  its  tide,  its  rising  and  its  sinking  in  heat 
and  cold.  This  office  Edward  Everett,  for  nearly  fifty  years, 
performed  for  Massachusetts  and  for  the  whole  country. 
In  his  orations  is  preserved  and  recorded  everything  of 
the  emotion  of  the  great  hours  of  our  people 's  history.  The 
camera  of  his  delicate  photography  has  preserved  for  future 
generations  what  passed  in  the  soul  of  his  own  in  the  times 
that  tried  the  souls  of  men. 

I  do  not  know  where  he  got  his  exquisite  elocution.  He 
went  abroad  in  his  youth,  and  there  were  good  trainers 
abroad,  then.  He  must  have  studied  thoroughly  the 
speeches  of  Cicero  and  the  Greek  orators.     Many  casual 


phrases  in  his  works,  besides  many  quotations,  show  his 
familiarity  with  Cicero's  writings  on  oratory. 

If  you  would  get  some  faint,  far-off  conception  of  him, 
first  look  at  the  best  bust  or  picture  of  Everett  you  can  find. 
Imagine  the  figure  with  its  every  movement  gentle  and 
graceful.  The  head  and  face  are  suggestive  of  Greek  sculp- 
ture. This  person  sits  on  the  platform  with  every  expres- 
sion discharged  from  the  face,  looking  like  a  plaster  image 
when  the  artist  has  just  begun  his  model,  before  any  charac- 
ter or  intelligence  has  been  put  into  it.  You  think  him  the 
only  person  in  the  audience  who  takes  no  interest  whatever 
in  what  is  going  on,  and  certainly  that  he  expects  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it  himself.  He  is  introduced.  He  comes 
forward  quietly  and  gracefully.  There  is  a  slight  smile  of 
recognition  of  the  welcoming  applause.  The  opening  sen- 
tences are  spoken  in  a  soft — I  had  almost  said,  a  caressing 
voice,  though  still  a  little  cold.  I  suppose  it  would  be  called 
a  tenor  voice.  There  was  nothing  in  the  least  unmanly 
about  Edward  Everett.  Yet  if  some  woman  had  spoken  in 
the  same  tones,  you  would  have  not  thought  them  un- 

Ilia  tanquam  cyenea  fuit  divini  hominis  vox  et  oratio. 

He  has  found  somewhere  in  the  vast  storehouse  of  his  knowl- 
edge a  transaction  exactly  like  the  present,  or  exactly  in 
contrast  with  it,  or  some  sentiment  of  poet  or  orator  which 
just  fits  the  present  occasion.  If  it  be  new  to  his  audience, 
he  adds  to  it  a  newer  delight  still  by  his  matchless  skill  as 
a  narrator— a  skill  almost  the  rarest  of  all  talents  among 
public  speakers.  If  it  be  commonplace  and  hackneyed  he 
makes  it  fresh  and  pleasant  by  giving  in  detail  the  circum- 
stances when  it  was  first  uttered,  or  describes  some  occasion 
when  some  orator  has  applied  it  before;  or  calls  attention 
to  its  very  triteness  as  giving  it  added  authority.  If  he 
wish  to  express  his  agreement  with  the  last  speaker  and 
"say  ditto  to  Mr.  Burke,"  he  tells  you  when  that  was  said, 
what  was  the  occasion,  and  gives  you  the  name  of  Mr. 
Kruger,  who  stood  for  the  representation  of  Bristol  with 


Mr.  Everett's  stores  were  inexhaustible.  If  any  speaker 
have  to  get  ready  in  a  hurry  for  a  great  occasion,  let  him 
look  through  the  index  of  the  four  volumes  of  Everett's 
speeches,  and  he  will  find  matter  enough,  not  only  to  stimu- 
late his  own  thought  and  set  its  currents  running,  but  to 
illustrate  and  adorn  what  he  will  say. 

But  pretty  soon  the  orator  rises  into  a  higher  plane.  Some 
lofty  sentiment,  some  stirring  incident,  some  patriotic  emo- 
tion, some  play  of  fancy  or  wit  comes  from  the  brain  or  heart 
of  the  speaker.  The  audience  is  hushed  to  silence.  Per- 
haps a  little  mist  begins  to  gather  in  their  eyes.  There  is 
now  an  accent  of  emotion  in  the  voice,  though  still  soft  and 
gentle.  The  Greek  statue  begins  to  move.  There  is  life  in 
the  limbs.  There  has  been  a  lamp  kindled  somewhere  behind 
the  clear  and  transparent  blue  eyes.  The  flexible  muscles 
of  the  face  have  come  to  life  now.  Still  there  is  no  jar  or 
disorder.  The  touch  upon  the  nerves  of  the  audience  is 
like  that  of  a  gentle  nurse.  The  atmosphere  is  that  of  a  May 
morning.  There  is  no  perfume  but  that  of  roses  and  lilies. 
But  still,  gently  at  first,  the  warmer  feelings  are  kindled  in 
the  hearts  of  the  speaker  and  hearers.  The  frame  of  the 
speaker  is  transfigured.  The  trembling  hands  are  lifted 
high  in  air.  The  rich,  sweet  voice  fills  the  vast  audience 
chamber  with  its  resonant  tones.  At  last,  the  bugle,  the 
trumpet,  the  imperial  clarion  rings  out  full  and  clear,  and 
the  vast  audience  is  transported  as  to  another  world— I  had 
almost  said  to  a  seventh  heaven.  Eead  the  welcome  to 
Lafayette  or  the  close  of  the  matchless  eulogy  on  that  illus- 
trious object  of  the  people's  love.  Eead  the  close  of  the  ora- 
tion on  Washington.  Read  the  contrast  of  Washington  and 
Marlborough.  Read  the  beautiful  passage  where,  just  be- 
fore the  ocean  cable  was  laid,  the  rich  fancy  of  the  speaker 
describes — 

"The  thoughts  that  we  think  up  here  on  the  earth's  sur- 
face in  the  cheerful  light  of  day— clothing  ourselves  with 
elemental  sparks,  and  shooting  with  fiery  speed  in  a  moment, 
in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  from  hemisphere  to  hemisphere, 
far  down  among  the  uncouth  monsters  that  wallow  in  the 
nether  seas,  along  the  wreck-paved  floor,  through  the  oozy 


dungeons  of  the  rayless  deep;  the  last  intelligence  of  the 
crops,  whose  dancing  tassels  will  in  a  few  months  be  coquet- 
ting with  the  west  wind  on  those  boundless  prairies,  flashing 
along  the  slimy  decks  of  old  sunken  galleons,  which  have 
been  rotting  for  ages ;  messages  of  friendship  and  love,  from 
warm,  living  bosoms,  burn  over  the  cold  green  bones  of  men 
and  women,  whose  hearts,  once  as  fond  as  ours,  burst  as  the 
eternal  gulfs  closed  and  roared  over  them,  centuries  ago." 
Read  the  passage  in  the  eulogy  on  Choate  where  he  describes 
him  arming  himself  in  the  entire  panoply  of  his  gorgeous 
rhetoric— and  you  will  get  some  far-away  conception  of  the 
power  of  this  magician. 

One  thing  especially  distinguishes  our  modern  orator  from 
the  writer  in  the  closet,  where  he  writes  solely  for  his  read- 
ers, or  where  he  has  prepared  his  speeches  beforehand— 
that  is,  the  influence  of  the  audience  upon  him.  There  is 
nothing  like  it  as  a  stimulant  to  every  faculty,  not  only  imag- 
ination, and  fancy,  and  reason,  but  especially,  as  every  expe- 
rienced speaker  knows,  memory  also.  Everything  needed 
seems  to  come  out  from  the  secret  storehouses  of  the  mind, 
even  the  things  that  have  lain  there  forgotten,  rusting  and 
unused.  Mr.  Everett  describes  this  in  a  masterly  passage  in 
his  Life  of  Webster.  Grladstone  states  it  in  a  few  fine 
sentences : 

"The  work  of  the  orator,  from  its  very  inception,"  he 
says,  ' '  is  inextricably  mixed  up  with  practice.  It  is  cast  in 
the  mould  offered  to  him  by  the  mind  of  his  hearers.  It  is 
an  influence  principally  received  from  his  audience  (so  to 
speak)  in  vapor,  which  he  pours  back  upon  them  in  a  flood. 
The  sympathy  and  concurrence  of  his  time  is,  with  his  own 
mind,  joint  parent  of  his  work.  He  cannot  follow  nor  frame 
ideals ;  his  choice  is  to  be  what  his  age  would  have  him,  what 
it  requires  in  order  to  be  moved  by  him,  or  else  not  to  be 
at  all." 

I  heard  six  of  Kossuth's  very  best  speeches.  He  was  a 
marvellous  orator.  He  seemed  to  have  mastered  the  whole 
vocabulary  of  English  speech,  and  to  have  a  rare  gift  of 
choosing  words  that  accurately  expressed  his  meaning,  and 


lie  used  so  to  fashion  his  sentences  that  they  were  melodious 
and  delightful  to  the  ear.  That  is  one  great  gift  of  oratory, 
as  it  is  of  poetry,  or  indeed  of  a  good  prose  style.  Why  it 
is  that  two  words  or  phrases  which  mean  precisely  the  same 
thing  to  "the  intellect,  have  so  different  an  effect  on  the  emo- 
tions, no  man  can  tell.  To  understand  it,  is  to  know  the 
secret  not  only  of  reaching  the  heart,  hut  frequently  of  con- 
vincing the  understanding  of  men. 

Kossuth  made  a  great  many  speeches,  sometimes  five  or 
six  in  a  day.  He  could  have  had  no  preparation  but  the  few 
minutes  which  he  could  snatch  while  waiting  for  dinner  at 
some  house  where  he  was  a  guest,  or  late  at  night,  after  a 
hard  day 's  work.  But  his  speeches  were  gems.  They  were 
beautiful  in  substance  and  in  manner.  He  was  ready  for 
every  occasion.  When  the  speaker  who  welcomed  him  at 
Eoxbury  told  him  that  Roxbury  contained  no  historic  spot 
that  would  interest  a  stranger,  Kossuth  at  once  answered, 
"You  forget  that  it  is  the  birthplace  of  Warren."  When 
old  Josiah  Quincy,  then  past  eighty,  said  at  a  Legislative 
banquet  that  he  had  come  to  the  time— "when  the  keepers 
of  the  house  shall  tremble,  and  the  strong  men  shall  bow 
themselves,  and  the  grinders  cease  because  they  are  few, 
and  those  that  look  out  of  the  Avindows  be  darkened,  and 
they  shall  be  afraid  of  that  which  is  high,  and  fears  shall  be 
in  the  way,"  Kossuth  interrupted  him,  "Ah!  but  that  was 
of  ordinary  men. ' ' 

I  was  a  member  of  the  Legislature  when  Kossuth  visited 
Boston.  I  heard  his  address  to  the  House  and  to  the  Senate, 
his  reply  to  the  Governor's  welcome.  I  heard  him  again 
at  the  Legislative  banquet  in  Faneuil  Hall,  and  twice  in 
Worcester— on  the  Common  in  the  afternoon,  and  at  the 
City  Hall  in  the  evening.  I  shook  hands  with  him  and  per- 
haps exchanged  a  word  or  two,  but  of  that  I  have  no  mem- 
ory. Afterward  I  visited  him  with  my  wife  at  Turin  in 
1892,  when  he  was  a  few  months  past  ninety.  He  received 
me  with  great  cordiality.  I  spent  two  hours  with  him  and 
his  sister.  Madam  Euttkay.  They  both  expressed  great 
pleasure  with  the  visit,  and  Madam  Euttkay  kissed  Mrs. 
Hoar  affectionately  when  we  took  leave.     Kossuth's  beau- 


tiful  English  periods  were  as  beautiful  as  they  were  forty 
years  before,  at  the  time  of  his  famous  pilgrimage  through 
the  United  States.  His  whole  conversation  related  to  the 
destiny  of  his  beloved  Hungary.  He  spoke  with  great  dig- 
nity of  his  own  share  in  the  public  events  which  affected  his 
country.  There  was  nothing  of  arrogance  or  vanity  in  his 
claim  for  himself,  yet  in  speaking  of  Francis  Joseph,  he 
assumed  unconsciously  the  tone  of  a  superior.  He  main- 
tained that  constitutional  liberty  could  never  be  permanent 
where  two  countries  with  separate  legislatures  were  under 
one  sovereign.  He  said  the  sovereign  would  always  be  able 
to  use  the  military  and  civil  power  of  one  to  accomplish  his 
designs  against  the  liberty  of  the  other.  The  opinion  of 
Kossuth  on  such  a  question  is  entitled  to  the  greatest  defer- 
ence. But  I  incline  to  the  belief  that,  while  undoubtedly 
there  may  be  great  truth  in  the  opinion,  the  spirit  of  liberty 
will  overcome  that  danger.  Hungary  and  Hungary 's  chief 
city  seem  rapidly  to  be  asserting  control  in  their  own  affairs 
and  an  influence  in  the  Austro-Hungary  Empire  which  no 
monarch  will  be  able  to  withstand,  and  which  it  is  quite 
likely  the  royal  family  will  not  desire  to  withstand.  In  these 
days  monarchs  are  learning  the  love  of  liberty,  and  I  believe 
in  most  eases  to-day  the  reigning  sovereigns  of  Europe  are 
eager  to  promote  constitutional  government,  and  prefer  the 
title  of  Liberator  to  that  of  Despot. 

I  have  heard  Wendell  Phillips  speak  a  great  many  times. 
I  do  not  include  him  in  this  notice,  because,  if  I  did,  I  ought 
to  defend  my  estimate  of  him  at  considerable  length,  and  to 
justify  it  by  ample  quotation.  I  think  him  entitled  to  the 
very  highest  rank  as  an  orator.  I  do  not  estimate  his  moral 
character  highly.  I  think  he  exerted  very  little  influence  on 
his  generation,  and  that  the  influence  he  did  exert  was  in  the 
main  pernicious.  I  have  had  copied  everything  he  said, 
from  the  time  he  made  his  first  speech,  so  far  as  it  is  found  in 
the  newspapers,  and  have  the  volumes  in  which  his  speeches 
are  collected.  I  never  had  any  occasion  to  complain  of  him 
on  my  own  account.  So  far  as  I  know  and  believe,  he  had 
the  kindliest  feeling  for  me  until  his  death,  and  esteemed  my 
public  service  much  more  highly  than  it  deserved.     But  he 


bitterly  and  unjustly  attacked  men  whom  I  loved  and  hon- 
ored under  circumstances  which  make  it  impossible  for  me 
to  believe  that  his  conduct  was  consistent  with  common  hon- 
esty. He  seemed  nev6r  to  care  for  the  soundness  of  his 
opinion  before  he  uttered  it,  or  for  the  truth  of  the  fact 
before  he  said  it,  if  only  he  could  produce  a  rhetorical 
effect.  He  seemed  to  like  to  defame  men  whom  the  peo- 
ple loved  and  honored.  Toward  the  latter  part  of  his 
life,  he  seemed  to  get  desperate.  If  he  failed  to  make  an 
impression  by  argument,  he  took  to  invective.  If  vinegar 
would  not  answer  he  resorted  to  cayenne  pepper.  If  that 
failed,  he  tried  to  throw  vitriol  in  the  eyes  of  the  men  whom 
he  hated.  His  remedy  for  slavery  was  to  destroy  the  coun- 
try, and  to  leave  the  slave  to  the  unchecked  will  of  the  South. 
During  Lincoln's  great  trial,  he  attacked  and  vilified  him. 
At  the  time  when  nearly  every  household  in  the  North  was 
mourning  for  its  dead,  he  tried  to  persuade  the  people  that 
Lincoln  did  not  mean  to  put  down  the  Rebellion.  He  never 
gave  the  people  wise  counsel,  and  rarely  told  them  the  honest 
truth.  He  rarely  gave  his  homage  to  anybody.  When  he 
did,  it  was  to  bad  men,  and  not  to  good  men. 

There  can  be  no  worse  influence  upon  the  youth  of  the 
Bepublic  than  that  which  shall  induce  them  to  approve  sen- 
timents, not  because  they  are  true,  but  only  because  they 
are  eloquently  said. 



I  HAVE  given  the  best  study  I  could  to  the  grave  evil  of  the 
accumulation  in  this  country  of  vast  fortunes  in  single  hands, 
or  of  vast  properties  in  the  hands  of  great  corporations— 
popularly  spoken  of  as  trusts— whose  powers  are  wielded 
by  one,  or  a  few  persons.  This  is  the  most  important  ques- 
tion before  the  American  people  demanding  solution  in  the 
immediate  future.  A  great  many  remedies  have  been  pro- 
posed, some  with  sincerity  and  some,  I  am  afraid,  merely  for 
partisan  ends.  The  difficulty  is  increased  by  the  fact  that 
many  of  the  evils  caused  by  trusts,  or  apprehended  from 
them,  can  only  be  cured  by  the  action  of  the  States,  but  can- 
not be  reached  by  Congress,  which  can  only  deal  with  inter- 
national or  interstate  commerce.  As  long  ago  as  1890  the 
people  were  becoming  alarmed  about  this  matter.  But  the 
evil  has  increased  rapidly  during  the  last  twelve  years.  It 
is  said  that  one  man  in  this  country  has  acquired  a  fortune 
of  more  than  a  thousand  million  dollars  by  getting  an  advan- 
tage over  other  producers  or  dealers  in  a  great  necessary  of 
life  in  the  rates  at  which  the  railroads  transport  his  goods  to 

In  1890  a  bill,  was  passed  which  was  called  the  Sherman 
Act,  for  no  other  reason  that  I  can  think  of  except  that  Mr. 
Sherman  had  nothing  to  do  with  framing  it  whatever.  He 
introduced  a  bill  and  reported  it  from  the  Finance  Commit- 
tee providing  that  whenever  a  trust,  as  it  was  called,  dealt 
with  an  article  protected  by  the  tariff,  the  article  should  be 
put  on  the  free  list.  This  was  a  crude,  imperfect,  and  unjust 
provision.  It  let  in  goods  made  abroad  by  a  foreign  trust 
to  compete  with  the  honest  domestic  manufacturer.  If 
there  happened  to  be  an  industry  employing  thousands  or 



hundreds  of  thousands  of  workmen,  in  which  thousands  of 
millions  of  American  capital  was  invested,  and  a  few  per- 
sons got  up  a  trust— perhaps  importers,  for  the  very  purpose 
of  breaking  down  the  American  manufacturer— and  made 
the  article  to  a  very  small  extent,  all  honest  manufacturers 
would  be  deprived  of  their  protection. 

Mr.  Sherman's  bill  found  little  favor  with  the  Senate.  It 
was  referred  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  which  I  was 
then  a  member.  I  drew  as  an  amendment  the  present  bill 
which  I  presented  to  the  Committee.  There  was  a  good  deal 
of  opposition  to  it  in  the  Committee.  Nearly  every  member 
had  a  plan  of  his  own.  But  at  last  the  Committee  came 
to  my  view  and  reported  the  law  of  1890.  The  House  dis- 
agreed to  our  bill  and  the  matter  went  to  a  Conference  Com- 
mittee, of  which  Mr.  Edmunds,  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee, and  I,  as  the  member  of  the  Committee  who  was 
the  author  of  the  bill,  were  members.  The  House  finally 
came  to  our  view. 

It  was  expected  that  the  Court,  in  administering  that  law, 
would  confine  its  operation  to  cases  which  are  contrary  to  the 
policy  of  the  law,  treating  the  words  "agreements  in  re- 
straint of  trade"  as  having  a  technical  meaning,  such  as 
they  are  supposed  to  have  in  England.  The  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  went  in  this  particular  farther  than  was 
expected.  In  one  case  it  held  that  "the  bill  comprehended 
every  scheme  that  might  be  devised  to  restrain  trade  or  com- 
merce among  the  several  States  or  with  foreign  nations." 
From  this  opinion  several  of  the  Court,  including  Mr.  Jus- 
tice Gray,  dissented.  It  has  not  been  carried  to  its  full  ex- 
tent since,  and  I  think  will  never  be  held  to  prohibit  the 
lawful  and  harmless  combinations  which  have  been  per- 
mitted in  this  country  and  in  England  without  complaint, 
like  contracts  of  partnership  which  are  usually  considered 
harmless.  "We  thought  it  was  best  to  use  this  general  phrase 
which,  as  we  thought,  had  an  accepted  and  well-known  mean- 
ing in  the  English  law,  and  then  after  it  had  been  construed 
by  the  Court,  and  a  body  of  decisions  had  grown  up  under 
the  law,  Congress  would  be  able  to  make  such  further  amend- 
ments as  might  be  found  by  experience  necessary. 

TRUSTS  365 

The  statute  lias  worked  very  well  indeed,  althougli  tlie 
Court  by  one  naajority  and  against  the  very  earnest  and 
emphatic  dissent  of  some  of  its  greatest  lawyers,  declined  to 
give  a  technical  meaning  to  the  phrase  "in  restraint  of 
trade."  But  the  operation  of  the  statute  has  been  healthy. 
The  Attorney-General  has  recently  given  an  account  of  suits 
in  equity  by  which  he  has  destroyed  a  good  many  vast  com- 
binations, including  a  combination  of  the  six  largest  meat- 
packing concerns  in  the  country ;  a  combination  of  railroads 
which  had  been  restrained  from  making  any  rebate  or  grant- 
ing any  preference  whatever  to  any  shipper;  and  a  pooling 
arrangement  between  the  Southern  railroads  which  denied 
the  right  of  the  shippers  interested  in  the  cotton  product  in 
the  South  to  prescribe  the  route  over  which  their  goods 
should  pass.  He  has  also  brought  a  suit  in  equity  to  prevent 
the  operation  of  a  proposed  merger  of  sundry  transconti- 
nental railroads,  thereby  breaking  up  a  monopoly  which 
affected  the  whole  freight  and  passenger  traffic  of  the 

The  public  uneasiness,  however,  still  continued.  The  matter 
was  very  much  discussed  in  the  campaign  for  electing  mem- 
bers of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the  autumn  of  1902. 

I  made  two  or  three  careful  speeches  on  the  subject  in 
Massachusetts,  in  which  I  pointed  out  that  the  existing  law, 
in  general,  was  likely  to  be  sufficient.  I  claimed,  however, 
further,  that  Congress  had,  in  my  opinion,  the  power  of  con- 
trolling the  whole  matter,  by  reason  of  its  right  to  prescribe 
terms  on  which  any  corporation,  created  by  State  authority 
or  its  own,  should  engage  in  interstate  or  international  com- 
merce. It  might  provide  as  a  condition  for  such  traffic  by 
a  corporation,  that  its  officers  or  members  should  put  on  file 
an  obligation  to  be  personally  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  con- 
cern in  case  the  conditions  prescribed  by  Congress  were  not 
complied  with. 

The  House  of  Representatives  passed  a  very  stringent 
bill  known  as  the  Littlefield  Bill,  which  was  amended  by  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  of  which  I  was  the  Chairman,  by  add- 
ing the  provisions  of  a  bill  which  I  had,  myself,  previously 
introduced,  based  on  the  suggestions  above  stated. 


But  there  was  a  general  feeling  that  the  amendments  to 
the  existing  law  proposed  by  the  Administration  were  all 
that  should  be  made  at  present.  These  consisted  in  provid- 
ing severe  penalties  for  granting  rebates  by  railroads  to 
favored  shippers;  for  having  suits  under  the  existing  law 
brought  forward  for  prompt  decision,  and  for  giving  the 
new  Department  of  Commerce  large  powers  for  the  exami- 
nation of  the  conduct  of  the  business  of  such  corporations, 
and  to  compel  them  to  make  such  returns  as  should  be 
thought  desirable. 

I  should  have  preferred  to  have  the  bill  I  reported  brought 
forward  and  discussed  in  the  Senate,  although  there  was 
obviously  no  time,  with  the  pressure  of  other  business,  to 
get  it  through.  But  it  was  thought  best  by  a  majority  of 
the  Eepublicans  not  to  take  it  up.  Some  of  them  thought  it 
was  likely,  if  passed,  to  have  a  very  serious  and  perhaps 
disastrous  effect  on  the  country.  So  far  as  I  know,  nobody 
in  either  House  of  Congress  or  in  the  press  has  pointed  out 
why  such  a  result  would  be  likely  to  follow. 

On  the  whole  I  was  very  well  satisfied.  The  interests  con- 
cerned are  vast.  A  rash  or  unskilful  remedy  might  bring 
infinite  trouble  or  ruin  to  lawful  business.  The  work  of 
restraining  the  trusts  is  going  on  very  well  under  the  law  of 
1890.  It  is  a  matter  which  must  be  discussed  and  consid- 
ered by  the  American  people  for  a  great  many  years  to  come, 
and  the  evils  from  the  trusts  at  present  are  rather  in  antici- 
pation than  in  reality.  So  I  am  very  well  content,  for  the 
present,  with  what  has  been  accomplished. 


The  Worcester  Bar,  when  I  came  to  it,  was  much  like  a 
class  of  boys  in  college.  There  was  rivalry  and  sharp  prac- 
tice in  some  cases,  and  roughness  of  speech  toward  each 
other  and  toward  witnesses  and  parties.  But  in  the  main, 
the  lawyers  stood  by  one  another  and  were  ready  to  help 
each  other  in  trouble,  and  the  lawyer's  best  and  most  trust- 
worthy friends  were  his  associates.  The  Judge  and  the 
jurymen,  and  the  lawyers  from  out  of  town  used  to  come  into 
Worcester  and  stay  at  the  old  Sykes  or  Thomas  Tavern, 
opposite  the  court-house,  and  at  another  one  known  as  the 
United  States  Hotel,  further  south.  The  former  was  kept 
for  a  good  many  years  by  an  old  fellow  named  Sykes.  He 
was  a  singular-looking  person— a  large  head,  stout  body, 
rather  protuberant  belly,  and  short  curved  legs  and  very 
long  arms.  He  had  large  heavy  eyebrows,  a  wide  mouth 
and  a  curved  nose  and  sallow  complexion  looking  a  good  deal 
like  the  caricatures  of  the  Jewish  countenance  in  the  comic 
newspapers.  He  had  two  sons  who  looked  very  much  like 
him  and  seemed  about  as  old  as  their  father.  One  day  the 
three  were  standing  in  front  of  his  tavern  when  a  country- 
man came  along  who  undertook  to  stop  with  his  load  at  the 
front  door  of  the  tavern.  Sykes  was  standing  there  with 
his  two  sons,  one  on  each  side  of  him.  He  did  not  like  to 
have  the  countryman  stop  his  load  in  that  spot  and  called  out 
to  him  rather  roughly,  ''Move  along."  The  fellow  surveyed 
the  group  for  a  moment  with  an  amused  look  and  complied 
with  the  order,  but  shouted  out  to  the  old  man:  "Wal,  this 
is  the  fust  time  I  ever  saw  three  Jacks  of  Spades  in  one 
pack. ' ' 

The  Court  sat  till  six  o'clock  and  often  far  into  the  eve- 
ning, and  began  at  half -past  eight  or  nine.     So  there  was  no 



chance  for  the  country  lawyers  to  go  home  at  night.  There 
was  great  fun  at  these  old  taverns  in  the  evening  and  at 
meal  times.  They  insisted  generally,  like  Mrs.  Battles  in 
whist,  on  the  rigor  of  the  game,  and  the  lawyer  had  to  look 
sharp  after  his  pleadings  or  he  found  himself  tripped  up. 
The  parties  could  not  be  witnesses,  nor  could  any  person 
interested  in  the  result  of  the  trial.  So  many  a  good  case, 
and  many  a  good  defence  failed  for  want  of  the  legal  evi- 
dence to  make  it  out.  But  the  whole  Bar  and  the  public 
seemed  to  take  an  interest  in  important  trials.  People  came 
in  from  the  country  round  about  with  their  covered  wagons, 
simply  for  the  pleasure  of  attending  Court  and  seeing  the 
champions  contend  with  each  other.  The  lawyers  who  were 
not  engaged  in  the  case  were  always  ready  to  help  those  who 
were  with  advice  and  suggestion.  It  used  to  be  expected 
that  members  of  the  Bar  would  be  in  the  court-house  hearing 
the  trials  even  if  they  were  not  engaged  in  them.  That  was 
always  an  excuse  for  being  absent  from  the  office,  and  their 
clients  sought  them  at  the  court-house  for  consultation.  I 
cannot  but  think  that  the  listening  to  the  trial  and  argument 
of  causes  by  skilful  advocates  was  a  better  law  school  than 
any  we  have  now,  and  that  our  young  men,  especially  in  the 
large  cities,  fail  to  become  good  advocates  and  to  learn  the 
art  of  putting  in  a  case,  and  of  examining  and  cross-exam- 
ining witnesses,  for  want  of  a  constant  and  faithful  attend- 
ance on  the  courts. 

In  those  old  times,  our  old  lawyers,  if  Charles  Lamb  had 
known  them  and  should  paint  them,  would  make  a  set  of 
portraits  as  interesting  as  his  old  Benchers  of  the  Inner  Tem- 
ple. Old  Calvin  Willard,  many  years  sheriff  of  Worcester, 
would  have  delighted  Elia.  He  did  not  keep  the  wig  or  the 
queue  or  the  small-clothes  of  our  great-grandfathers,  but 
he  had  their  formal  and  ceremonial  manners  in  perfection. 
It  was  like  a  great  State  ceremonial  to  meet  him  and  shake 
hands  with  him.  He  paused  for  a  moment,  surveyed  you 
carefully  to  be  sure  of  the  person,  took  a  little  time  for 
reflection  to  be  sure  there  was  nothing  in  the  act  to  com- 
promise his  dignity,  and  then  slowly  held  out  his  hand.  But 
the  grasp  was  a  warm  one,  and  the  ceremony  and  the  hand- 


shake  conveyed  his  cordial  respect  and  warmth  of  regard. 
He  always  reminded  me  of  the  Englishman  in  Crabbe's 
"Tales"  who,  I  think,  may  have  been  his  kinsman. 

The  wish  that  Roman  necks  in  one  were  found 

That  he  who  formed  the  wish  might  deal  the  wound, 

This  man  had  never  heard.    But  of  the  kind 

Is  the  desire  which  rises  in  his  mind. 

He'd  have  all  English  hands,  for  further  he 

Cannot  conceive  extends  our  charity. 
All  but  his  own,  in  one  right  hand  to  grow; 
And  then  what  hearty  shake  would  he  bestow. 

Mr.  Willard  was  once  counsel  before  a  magistrate  in  a 
case  in  which  he  took  much  interest.  A  rough,  coarse  coun- 
try lawyer  was  on  the  other  side.  When  Willard  stated 
some  legal  proposition,  his  adversary  said:  "I  will  bet  you 
five  dollars  that  ain't  law."  "Sir,"  said  Mr.  Willard, 
drawing  himself  up  to  his  full  height,  with  the  great  sol- 
emnity of  tone  of  which  he  was  master:  "Sir,  I  do  not 
permit  myself  to  make  the  laws  of  my  country  the  subject 
of  a  bet." 

Another  of  the  old  characters  who  came  down  to  my  time 
from  the  older  generation  was  Samuel  M.  Burnside.  He 
was  a  man  of  considerable  wealth  and  lived  in  a  generous 
fashion,  dispensing  an  ample  hospitality  at  his  handsome 
mansion,  still  standing  in  Worcester.  He  was  a  good  black- 
letter  lawyer,  though  without  much  gift  of  influencing  juries 
or  arguing  questions  of  law  to  the  Court.  He  was  a  good 
Latin  scholar,  very  fond  of  Horace  and  Virgil,  and  used  to 
be  on  the  committees  to  examine  the  students  at  Harvard, 
rather  disturbing  the  boys  with  his  somewhat  pedantic  ques- 
tioning. He  was  very  nearsighted,  and,  it  is  said,  once 
seized  the  tail  of  a  cow  which  passed  near  him  in  the  street 
and  hurried  forward,  supposing  some  woman  had  gone  by 
and  said,  "Madam,  you  are  dropping  your  tippet." 

One  of  the  most  interesting  characters  among  the  elders 
of  the  Worcester  Bar  was  old  Rejoice  Newton.  He  was  a 
man  of  excellent  judgment,  wisdom,  integrity  and  law 
learning  enough  to  make  him  a  safe  guide  to  his  clients  in 



their  important  transactions.  He  was  a  most  prosaic  per- 
son, without  sentiment,  without  much  knowledge  of  litera- 
ture, and  absolutely  without  humor.  He  was  born  in  North- 
field  near  the  banks  of  the  Connecticut  River  and  preserved 
to  the  time  of  his  death  his  love  of  rural  scenes  and  of  farm- 
ing. He  had  an  excellent  farm  a  mile  or  two  out  of  town, 
where  he  spent  all  the  time  he  could  get  from  his  profes- 
sional duties.  He  was  associated  with  Chief  Justice  Shaw 
in  some  important  cases,  and  always  thought  that  it  was  due 
to  his  recommendation  that  Governor  Lincoln  appointed  the 
Chief  Justice— a  suggestion  which  Governor  Lincoln  used 
to  repel  with  great  indignation.  The  Governor  was  also  a 
good  farmer,  especially  proud  of  his  cattle.  Each  of  them 
liked  to  brag  of  their  crops  and  especially  of  the  products 
of  their  respective  dairies.  Governor  Lincoln  was  once  dis- 
coursing to  D  evens  and  me,  in  our  office,  of  a  wonderful  cow 
of  his  which,  beside  raising  an  enormous  calf,  had  produced 
the  cream  for  a  great  quantity  of  butter.  Mr.  Devens  said : 
"Why,  that  beats  Major  Newton's  cow,  that  gave  for  months 
at  a  time  some  fifteen  or  eighteen  quarts  at  a  milking." 
' '  If  Brother  Newton  hears  of  my  cow, ' '  said  Governor  Lin- 
coln, "he  will  at  once  double  the  number  of  quarts."  The 
old  Major  was  quite  fond  of  telling  stories,  of  which  the 
strong  points  were  not  apt  to  suffer  in  his  narration.  One 
Fourth  of  July,  when  he  had  got  to  be  an  old  man,  he  came 
down  street  and  met  a  brother  member  of  the  Bar,  who  took 
him  up  into  the  room  of  the  Worcester  Light  Infantry,  a 
Company  of  which  the  Major's  deceased  son  had  long  ago 
been  the  Captain.  The  members  of  the  Company  were  spend- 
ing the  Fourth  with  a  bowl  of  punch  and  other  refreshments. 
The  Major  was  introduced  and  was  received  with  great  cor- 
diality, and  my  friend  left  him  there.  The  next  day  my 
friend  was  going  down  street  and  met  the  Captain  of  the 
Light  Infantry,  who  said:  "That  was  a  very  remarkable 
old  gentleman  you  brought  into  our  room  yesterday.  He 
stayed  there  all  the  forenoon,  drinking  punch  and  telling 
stories.  He  distinctly  remembered  General  Washington. 
He  went  home  to  dinner,  came  back  after  dinner,  drank  some 
more  punch,  and  remembered  Christopher  Columbus. ' ' 


The  old  Major  was  once  addressing  the  Supreme  Court 
and  maintained  a  doctrine  which  did  not  commend  itself  to 
Chief  Justice  Shaw.  The  Chief  Justice  interposed: 
"Brother  Newton,  what  is  the  use  of  arguing  that?  We 
have  held  otherwise  in  such  a  case  (citing  it)  and  again  and 
again  since. ' '  The  Major  paused,  drew  his  spectacles  slowly 
off  his  nose,  and  said  to  the  Court  with  great  seriousness: 
"May  it  please  your  Honors,  I  have  a  great  respect  for  the 
opinions  of  this  Court,  except  in  some  very  gross  cases. ' ' 

A  man  by  the  name  of  Lysander  Spooner,  whose  misfor- 
tune it  was  to  be  a  good  deal  in  advance  of  his  age,  the 
author  of  a  very  clever  pamphlet  maintaining  the  uncon- 
stitutionality of  slavery,  also  published  some  papers  attack- 
ing the  authenticity  of  the  Christian  miracles.  In  these 
days  of  Bob  IngersoU  such  views  would  be  met  with  entire 
toleration,  but  they  shocked  Major  Newton  exceedingly,  as 
they  did  most  persons  of  his  time.  Spooner  studied  for  the 
Bar  and  applied  to  be  admitted.  He  was  able  to  pass  an 
examination.  But  the  Major,  as  amicus  curice,  addressed 
the  Court  and  insisted  that  Spooner  was  not  a  man  of  proper 
character,  and  affirmed  in  support  of  his  assertion  that  he 
was  the  author  of  some  blasphemous  attacks  on  Christian- 
ity. The  result  was  that  Spooner 's  application  was  denied. 
The  Court  adjourned  for  dinner.  It  was  the  day  of  the 
calling  of  the  docket,  and  just  before  the  Judge  came  in  in 
the  afternoon,  the  whole  Bar  of  Worcester  County  were  as- 
sembled, filling  the  room.  The  Major  sat  in  a  seat  near 
one  of  the  doors.  He  had  dined  pretty  heavily,  the  day 
was  hot  and  the  Major  was  sleepy.  He  tipped  back  a  little 
in  his  chair,  his  head  fell  back  between  his  shoulders  and 
his  mouth  opened,  with  his  nose  pointed  toward  the  zenith. 
Just  then  Spooner  came  in.  As  he  passed  by  the  Major, 
the  temptation  was  irresistible.  He  seized  the  venerable 
nose  of  the  old  patriarch  between  his  thumb  and  finger,  and 
gave  it  a  vigorous  twist.  The  Major  was  awakened  and 
sprang  to  his  feet,  and  in  a  moment  realized  what  had  hap- 
pened. He  was,  as  may  be  well  supposed,  intensely  indig- 
nant. No  Major  in  the  militia  could  submit  to  such  an  in- 
sult.   He  seized  his  chair  and  hurled  it  at  the  head  of  the 


offender,  but  missed,  and  the  bystanders  interposed  before 
he  was  able  to  inflict  the  deserved  punishment. 

The  Major  lived  to  a  good  old  age.  His  mental  faculties 
became  somewhat  impaired  before  he  died.  He  had  great 
respect  for  his  excellent  son-in-law,  Colonel  Wetherell,  who 
was  on  Governor  Andrew's  staff  during  the  War,  and 
thought  that  anything  which  ought  to  be  accomplished  could 
be  accomplished  by  the  influence  of  the  Colonel.  Somebody 
told  him  during  the  hardest  part  of  the  war  that  we  ought 
to  bend  all  our  energies  to  the  capture  of  Richmond.  If 
Eichmond  were  to  fall  the  rebellion  would  be  easily  put 
down.  "You  are  quite  right,  sir,"  said  the  Major.  "It 
ought  to  be  done,  and  I  will  speak  to  Colonel  Wetherell 
about  it."  But  everybody  who  knew  the  worthy  Major,  un- 
less it  were  some  offender  against  justice,  or  some  person 
against  whose  wrong-doing  he  had  been  the  shield  and 
protector  to  a  client,  liked  the  kindly,  honest  and  sturdy  old 
man.  He  was  District  Attorney  for  the  district  which  in- 
cluded Worcester  County— an  office  then  and  ever  since  held 
by  admirable  lawyers.  He  prided  himself  on  the  fact  that 
he  never  drew  an  indictment  which  was  not  sustained  by 
the  Court,  if  it  were  questioned.  He  liked  to  recite  his  old 
triumphs.  He  especially  plumed  himself  on  his  sagacity  in 
dealing  with  one  case  which  came  before  him.  A  complaint 
was  made  of  a  book  well  known  at  that  time,  the  memoirs 
of  a  dissolute  woman,  which  was  full  of  indecency,  but  in 
which  there  could  not  be  found  a  single  separate  indecent 
sentence  or  word.  The  Major  was  at  a  loss  for  some  time 
what  to  do  in  indicting  it.  If  he  set  forth  the  whole  book, 
it  would  give  it  an  immortality  on  the  records  of  the  court 
which  perhaps  would  be  worse  for  the  public  morals  than 
the  original  publication.  Finally  he  averred  in  the  indict- 
ment that  the  defendant  had  published  a  book  so  indecent 
that  it  was  unfit  to  be  spread  on  the  records  of  the  court. 
The  question  went  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  indict- 
ment was  held  good.  It  was  difficult  for  the  Court  or  the 
jury  to  find  that  such  a  book  was  fit  to  be  spread  on  the 
records  of  the  Court,  and  the  Major  secured  his  victory  and 
convicted  his  criminal. 


One  of  the  bright  young  lawyers  who  came  to  the  Bar  a 
few  years  after  I  did,  was  Appleton  Dadmun.  He  died  of 
consumption  after  a  brief  but  very  successful  career.  He 
was  the  very  type  and  embodiment  of  the  Yankee  country- 
man in  his  excellencies  and  his  defects  and  in  his  fashion 
of  speech  and  behavior.  He  was  a  graduate  of  Amherst 
College.  The  only  evidence  I  ever  discovered  of  his  class- 
ical education  was  his  habit  of  using  the  Greek  double  nega- 
tive in  ordinary  English  speech.  He  used  to  employ  me 
almost  always  as  senior  when  he  had  a  case  to  argue  to  a 
jury,  or  an  important  law  argument  in  Court.  He  would 
put  off  the  engagement  until  just  as  the  case  was  coming  on. 
He  used  to  intend  to  try  his  cases  himself.  But  his  heart, 
at  the  last  moment,  would  fail  him.  He  was  as  anxious 
about  his  clients'  causes  as  if  they  were  his  own.  He  was 
exceedingly  negligent  about  his  pleadings  and  negligent  in 
the  matter  of  being  prepared  with  the  necessary  formal 
proofs  of  facts  which  were  really  not  doubtful  but  which 
were  put  in  issue  by  the  pleadings.  When  I  was  retained 
my  first  duty  was  to  prepare  an  amendment  of  the  declara- 
tion or  the  answer  or  plea,  or,  perhaps,  to  see  whether  he  had 
got  the  attesting  witness  to  prove  some  signature.  But  when 
we  had  got  past  all  that  I  used  to  find  that  he  had  prepared 
his  evidence  with  reference  to  what  was  the  pinch  of  the 
case  and  what  was  likely  to  be  finally  the  doubtful  point  in 
the  mind  of  court  or  jury  with  infinite  sagacity  and  skill. 
I  have  rarely  known  a  better  judge  of  the  effect  of  evidence 
on  the  mind  of  ordinary  juries.  He  took  his  clients  into  his 
affection  as  if  they  had  been  his  own  brethren  or  children, 
and  seemed  always  to  hate  to  be  compelled  to  make  any 
charge  for  his  services,  however  successful. 

He  had  a  pleasant  wit.  On  one  occasion  a  member  of  the 
bar  named  Holbrook,  who  was  not  a  bad  fellow,  but  had,  like 
the  rest  of  the  world,  some  peccadilloes  to  repent  of,  came 
into  the  Court-house  one^  morning  just  as  the  Court  was 
coming  in  where  the  lawyers  were  gathered.  Much  excited, 
he  said  he  was  riding  into  Worcester  in  a  chaise  from  the 
neighboring  town  where  he  spent  his  nights  in  the  summer. 
His  horse  had  run  away  and  tore  at  a  terrible  rate  down 


Main  Street,  swinging  the  chaise  from  one  side  to  the  other 
as  he  ran,  and  breaking  some  part  of  the  harness  and  per- 
haps one  of  the  shafts.  But  at  last  he  had  contrived  to 
crawl  out  through  the  window  behind  in  the  chaise  top  and 
hold  on  to  the  cross-bar.  Letting  himself  down  just  as  the 
chaise  had  got  to  the  extremity  of  its  sway  from  one  side 
to  another,  he  let  go  and  escaped  without  injury.  But,  he 
said,  it  was  a  terrible  five  minutes.  Every  action  of  his  life 
seemed  to  rush  through  his  memory  with  the  swiftness  of 
a  torrent.  "You  ought  to  have  very  heavy  damages,  sir," 
said  Mr.  Dadmun. 

Another  of  the  brightest  of  the  young  lawyers  when  I 
came  to  the  Bar  was  H.  He  had,  however,  had  rather  an 
unfortunate  introduction  to  life.  His  father,  who  was  a 
very  wealthy  and  prosperous  manufacturer,  sent  him  to  Tale 
College  and  supplied  him  liberally  with  money,  not  only  for 
his  support,  but  for  the  indulgence  of  every  extravagant 
taste.  Beside  spending  what  his  father  allowed  him,  he 
incurred  a  good  many  debts,  expecting  to  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  their  payment.  His  father  failed  in  business  with 
a  great  crash  about  the  end  of  his  junior  year  and  died  sud- 
denly. He  kept  on,  however,  on  credit,  until  he  graduated, 
and  then  came  out  with  a  heavy  load  of  debt,  and  no  re- 
sources for  studying  his  profession.  He  got  through,  how- 
ever, by  dint  of  plausible  manners.  He  was  a  very  honest 
fellow  in  all  other  respects,  but  he  got  the  habit  of  incurring 
debts  which  he  could  not  pay.  Then  he  took  to  drinking 
hard,  and  finally  went  to  New  York,  and  died  after  a  career 
of  dissipation.  But  everybody  liked  him.  Drunk  or  sober, 
he  was  the  best  company  in  the  world,  full  of  anecdote  fla- 
vored with  a  shrewd  and  not  ill-natured  wit.  There  was  a 
manufacturer  in  a  village  near  Worcester  who  had  failed  in 
business  owing  large  debts  all  about.  He  was  a  man  of 
enormous  bulk,  the  fattest  man  in  the  whole  region  round- 
about, weighing  considerably  over  three  hundred.  He  left 
the  State  to  avoid  his  creditors,  and  dwelt  in  New  York, 
keeping  himself  out  of  their  reach.  At  last  it  was  dis- 
covered by  a  creditor  that  he  used  to  come  to  Worcester  in 
the  train  which  arrived  from  New  York  on  the  Western 


Railroad  shortly  before  midnight  Saturday,  go  over  to 
his  old  home,  which  was  not  far  off,  stay  there  Sunday, 
when  he  was  exempt  from  arrest,  and  take  the  cars  Sunday 
night  at  about  the  same  hour  for  New  York.  Accordingly 
old  Jonathan  Day,  a  veteran  deputy-sheriff,  armed  with  an 
execution,  lay  in  wait  for  him  one  dark  and  stormy  Saturday 
night  at  the  little  old  wooden  depot  of  the  Western  Eailroad, 
some  hundred  or  two  feet  from  Grafton  Street.  The  train 
came  in,  and  the  debtor  got  out.  The  old  General  laid  his 
hands  on  him,  and  told  him  he  was  his  prisoner.  He  pro- 
tested and  demurred  and  begged,  making  all  manner  of 
promises  to  pay  the  debt  if  the  officer  would  not  take  him  to 
jail.  But  Day  was  inexorable.  Meantime  the  train  had 
gone  on,  and  the  keeper  of  the  depot  had  put  out  the  lights 
and  gone  off.  There  was  nobody  left  in  the  darkness  but 
the  officer  and  the  debtor.  "Well,"  said  the  fellow,  "if 
you  are  going  to  take  me  to  jail  you  must  carry  me.  I  won't 
walk."  So  he  sat  himself  down  on  the  platform.  Day 
tried  to  persuade  him  to  walk,  and  then  tugged  and  tugged 
at  his  collar,  but  without  the  slightest  effect.  He  might  as 
well  have  tried  to  move  a  mountain.  He  waited  in  a  good 
deal  of  perplexity,  and  at  last  he  heard  the  rattle  of  wheels 
on  Grafton  Street,  and  gave  a  loud  yell  for  assistance.  The 
owner  of  the  wagon  come  to  the  scene.  General  Day  de- 
manded his  help  as  one  of  the  posse  comitatus.  But  it  was 
as  hard  for  the  two  to  move  the  obstruction  as  it  had  been 
for  the  old  General  alone.  So  the  General  put  the  debtor  in 
charge  of  his  new  recruit,  and  went  off  up  street  to  see 
what  counsel  he  could  get  in  the  matter.  All  the  lights  in 
the  lawyers'  offices  and  places  of  business  were  out  except  a 
solitary  gleam  which  came  from  the  office  of  my  friend  H. 
He  was  sitting  up  alone,  soaking  himself  with  the  contents 
of  a  bottle  of  brandy.  General  Day  found  him  sitting  there 
and  stated  his  case.  My  friend  heard  it  through,  took  it 
into  consideration,  and  took  down  and  consulted  the  Re- 
vised Statutes  and  the  Digest.  At  last  he  shook  his  head 
with  an  air  of  drunken  gravity  and  said:  "I  don't  find  any 
express  provision  anywhere  for  such  a  case.  So  I  think  we 
must  be  governed  by  the  rule  of  law  for  the  case  nearest 


like  it  we  can  find.  That  seems  to  be  the  case  of  the  attach- 
ment of  personal  property,  such  as  lumber,  which  is  too 
bulky  to  be  removed.  My  advice  to  you  is  to  put  a  placard 
on  him  saying  he  is  attached,  and  go  off  and  leave  him  till 
Monday  morning." 

When  I  was  a  young  man,  one  summer  a  few  years  after 
my  admission  to  the  Bar,  I  took  a  journey  on  foot  with  Hor- 
ace Gray  through  Berkshire  County.  We  started  from 
Greenfield  and  walked  over  the  Hoosac  Mountain  to  Adams 
and  Williamstown,  then  over  the  old  road  to  Pittsfield,  then 
to  Stockbridge,  Great  Barrington,  and  the  summit  of  Mt. 
Washington,  now  better  known  as  Mt.  Everett  or  Taghsomi ; 
thence  to  Bashpish  Falls  in  New  York,  and  to  the  Salisbury 
Lakes  in  Connecticut.  We  visited  many  interesting  places 
and  enjoyed  what  has  always  seemed  to  me  the  most  beau- 
tiful scenery  on  earth. 

There  were  one  or  two  quite  ludicrous  adventures.  I 
went  alone  to  the  top  of  Bald  Mountain  in  Lenox  one  day. 
Gray  had  been  there  and  preferred  to  visit  a  neighboring 
hilltop.  As  I  approached  the  summit,  which  was  a  bare 
pasture,  I  came  upon  a  powerful  bull  with  a  herd  of  cattle 
near  him.  He  began  to  bellow  and  paw  the  ground  and 
move  toward  me  in  angry  fashion.  There  was  no  chance 
for  any  place  of  refuge  which  I  could  hope  to  gain.  I  looked 
around  for  some  rock  or  instrument  of  defence.  It  was,  I 
think,  the  most  imminent  danger  to  which  I  have  ever  been  ■ 
exposed.  I  was  calculating  my  capacity  for  dodging  the 
creature  when  suddenly  a  sound  like  a  small  clap  of  thunder 
was  heard.  The  rest  of  the  herd,  which  seemed  quite  wild, 
seeing  the  approach  of  a  stranger,  had  taken  alarm  and 
started  off  down  the  hillside  on  a  full  run,  their  rushing 
and  trampling  causing  the  earth  to  reverberate  beneath  their 
tread  and  produce  the  sound  of  which  I  have  just  spoken. 
The  old  bull  hearing  the  sound  and  seeing  his  companions 
departing  concluded  he  would  follow  their  example.  He 
turned  tail  too,  and  retreated  down  the  mountain  side,  much 
to  my  relief. 

On  our  walk  through  Lanesboro  we  stopped  at  a  plain 
country  tavern-  to  get  lunch.     There  were  several  codgers 


such  as  in  those  days  used  to  haunt  country  bar-rooms  about 
eleven  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  four  o'clock  in  the  after- 
noon. Sitting  in  an  old  wooden  chair  tilted  back  against 
the  wall  of  the  room  was  one  of  them  curled  up  with  his 
knees  sticking  up  higher  than  his  head.  He  looked  at 
Gray's  stately  proportions  and  called  out:  "How  tall  be 
youT'  Gray,  who  was  always  rather  careful  of  his  dig- 
nity, made  some  brief  answer  not  intended  to  encourage 
familiarity.  But  the  fellow  persisted:  "I  would  like  to 
measure  with  you."  Gray  concluded  it  was  best  to  enter 
into  the  humor  of  the  occasion.  So  he  stood  up  against  the 
wall.  The  other  man  proceeded  to  draw  himself  up  out  of 
the  chair,  and  unroll,  and  unroll,  and  unroll  until  at  last  his 
gigantic  stature  reached  up  almost  as  high  as  Gray's.  But 
he  fell  short  a  little.  I  learned,  later,  that  it  was  a  man 
named  Shaw  who  afterward  became  famous  as  a  writer  and 
htumorist  under  the  pseudonym  of  Josh  Billings.  He  was 
the  son  of  Henry  Shaw,  formerly  of  Laneshoro ;  at  that  time 
a  millionaire  dwelling  in  New  York,  and  known  to  fame  as 
one  of  the  two  Massachusetts  Representatives  who  voted  for 
the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1820.  Henry  Shaw  was,  I  be- 
lieve, a  native  of  Laneshoro,  and  had  represented  the  Berk- 
shire district  in  Congress. 

The  person  whom  the  Worcester  lawyers  of  this  time 
like  best  to  remember  was  Peter  C.  Bacon.  He  was  the 
Dominie  Sampson  of  the  Worcester  Bar.  I  suppose  he  was 
the  most  learned  man  we  ever  had  in  Worcester,  and  prob- 
ably, in  Massachusetts.  He  was  simple  and  guileless  as  a 
child;  of  a  most  inflexible  honesty,  devoted  to  the  interest 
of  his  clients,  and  an  enthusiastic  lover  of  the  science  of  the 
law.  When,  in  rare  cases,  he  thoroughly  believed  in  the 
righteousness  of  his  case,  he  was  irresistible.  But  in  gen- 
eral he  was  full  of  doubts  and  hesitation.  He  was,  until 
he  was  compelled  to  make  his  arguments  more  compact  by 
the  rules  of  court  limiting  the  time  of  arguments,  rather 
tedious.  He  liked  to  go  out  into  side-paths  and  to  discourse 
of  matters  not  material  to  the  issue  but  suggested  to  him  as 
he  went  along.  He  had  a  curious  fashion  of  using  the  an- 
cient nomenclature  of  the  Common  Law  where  it  had  passed 


out  of  the  knowledge  even  of  most  lawyers  and  the  compre- 
hension of  common  men.  He  would  begin  his  appeal  to  the 
jury  in  some  case  where  a  fraud  had  been  attempted  on  his 
client,  by  saying,  "Gentlemen,  the  law  abhorreth  covin." 
He  was  a  lawyer  everywhere.  His  world  was  the  Court- 
house and  his  office.  I  met  him  in  the  street,  of  a  Sunday 
noon,  one  summer  and  said  to  him,  "Why,  Brother  Bacon, 
you  must  have  had  a  long  sermon  to-day." 

"Oh,"  Mr.  Bacon  said,  "I  stayed  to  the  Sunday-school. 
I  have  a  class  of  young  girls.  It's  very  interesting.  I've 
got  'em  as  far  as  the  Eoman  Civil  Law." 

Mr.  Bacon  could  seldom  be  made  angry  by  any  incivility 
to  himself.  But  he  resented  any  attempt  to  deprive  a  client, 
however  much  of  a  ne'er-do-well  he  might  be,  of  all  the 
rights  and  forms  of  a  legal  trial.  He  was  also  much  dis- 
turbed if  any  lawyer  opposed  to  him  misstated  a  principle 
of  law,  who  ought,  in  his  judgment,  to  know  better.  I  was 
once  trying  a  case  against  him  and  his  partner,  Judge  Aid- 
rich,  where  General  Devens  was  my  associate.  Devens  was 
summing  up  the  case,  and  complaining  of  the  conduct  of 
some  parties  interested  in  the  estate  of  a  deceased  person. 
One  of  them  was  a  son  of  a  deceased  niece.  There  being 
no  children,  under  our  law,  the  nephews  and  nieces  inherit, 
but  not  the  children  of  deceased  nephews  or  nieces,  when 
there  are  living  nephews  or  nieces.  General  Devens,  not 
having  in  his  mind  the  legal  provision  at  the  moment,  said 
to  the  jury:  "The  sound  of  the  earth  on  the  coffin  of  the 
old  lady  had  scarcely  ceased  when  one  of  these  heirs  hur- 
ried to  the  probate  office  to  get  administration. ' '  Mr.  Bacon 
rose  and  interrupted  him  with  great  emotion.  "He  is  not 
an  heir. ' ' 

"I  said,"  Mr.  Devens  repeated,  "one  of  these  heirs,  Mr. 
A.  F." 

Bacon  burst  into  tears  and  said  again,  with  a  broken  voice : 
"He  is  not  an  heir,  I  say,  he  is  not  an  heir." 

I  saw  the  point  and  whispered  to  Devens:  "An  assumed 
heir. ' ' 

"Very  well,"  Devens  said,  "an  assumed  heir,  if  my 
friend  likes  it  better."     Bacon  replied  with  a  "Humph" 


of  contentment  and  satisfaction,  and  the  matter  subsided. 
As  I  was  walking  home  from  the  court-house  with  Mr.  Bacon 
afterward  I  expressed  my  regret  at  the  occurrence  and  told 
him  that  General  Devens  had  the  greatest  respect  for  him. 
Mr.  Bacon  replied:  "He  had  no  business  to  say  it.  Aid- 
rich  told  me  to  tell  him  he  had  not  read  the  'Eevised  Stat- 
utes. '  But  I  would  not  say  such  a  thing  as  that,  sir,  about 
any  man. ' ' 

But  Brother  Bacon  had  the  kindest  of  hearts.  It  was  im- 
possible for  him  to  bear  malice  or  retain  resentment  against 
anybody.  When  I  was  a  youngster  I  was  once  in  a  case 
where  Bacon  was  on  the  other  side.  Charles  Allen  was  my 
associate.  It  was  a  case  which  excited  great  public  feeling. 
There  were  throngs  of  witnesses.  It  was  tried  in  the  midst 
of  the  terrific  heats  of  one  of  the  hottest  summers  ever 
known  in  Worcester.  Allen,  who  had  a  power  of  stinging 
sarcasm  which  he  much  delighted  to  use,  kept  Bacon  nervous 
and  angry  through  the  whole  trial.  At  last,  one  afternoon. 
Bacon  lost  his  patience.  When  the  Court  adjourned,  he 
■  stood  up  on  a  little  flight  of  steps  on  the  outside  of  the  Court- 
house and  addressed  the  crowd,  who  were  going  out.  He 
said:  "Charles  Allen  has  abused  me  all  through  this  trial. 
He  is  always  abusing  me.  He  has  abused  me  ever  since  I 
came  to  this  Bar.  I  have  said  it  before  and  I  will  say  it 
again — he  is  a  curious  kind  of  a  man."  This  utterance 
relieved  Brother  Bacon's  wounded  feelings  and  he  never 
probably  thought  of  the  matter  again. 

One  of  the  great  events  in  Bacon's  life  was  his  receiving 
the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Laws  from  Brown  University,  where 
he  was  graduated.  This  gave  infinite  satisfaction  to  his 
brethren  of  the  Bar,  who  were  all  very  fond  of  him.  It  was 
at  once  proposed,  after  the  old  Yankee  fashion  in  the  coun- 
try when  a  man  got  a  new  hat  or  a  new  suit  of  clothes,  that 
we  should  all  go  down  to  T.'s  to  "wet"  it.  T.  was  the 
proprietor  of  a  house  a  few  miles  from  Worcester,  famous 
for  cooking  game  and  trout  in  the  season,  and  not  famous 
for  a  strict  observance  of  the  laws  against  the  sale  of  liquor. 
There  was  a  good  deal  of  feeling  about  that  among  the  tem- 
perance people  of  the  town,  although  it  was  a  most  excellent, 


properly  kept  house  in  all  other  respects.  But  the  prejudice 
against  it  of  the  strict  teetotalers  had  occasioned  some  en- 
tirely unfounded  scandal  about  its  management  in  other 
matters.  Mr.  Bacon,  when  invited  by  the  Bar  to  go  as  a 
guest,  accepted  the  invitation,  but  stipulated  that  he  should 
have  provided  for  him  a  pint  bottle  of  English  ale.  He  said 
he  was  opposed,  on  principle,  to  drinking  intoxicating  li- 
quors, but  his  doctors  had  ordered  that  he  should  drink  a  pint 
of  ale  every  day  with  his  dinner.  That  was  provided.  The 
Bar  sat  down  to  dinner  at  an  early  hour  and  the  fun  and 
frolic  were  kept  up  far  into  the  small  hours  of  the  night. 
Brother  Bacon  was  the  subject  of  every  speech  and  of  every 
toast.  He  seemed  to  think  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  reply 
to  every  speaker  and  toast.  So  he  was  kept  on  his  legs  a 
great  part  of  the  night.  As  he  sipped  his  modest  tumbler 
of  ale.  Brother  Dewey,  who  sat  next  to  him,  would  replenish 
it,  when  Mr.  Bacon  was  not  looking,  from  a  bottle  of  cham- 
pagne. So  at  least  two  quart  bottles  of  champagne  were 
passed  into  the  unsuspecting  Brother  Bacon  through 
that  single  pint  of  beer.  When  we  broke  up,  the  host 
came  to  ask  us  how  we  had  enjoyed  ourselves,  and  Mr. 
Bacon  told  him  he  would  like  to  know  where  he  got  that 
English  ale,  which  he  thought  was  the  best  he  had  ever 
tasted  in  his  life.  It  is  the  only  instance  that  I  know  of  in 
modern  times  of  the  repetition  of  the  miracle  of  the  widow's 

Judge  Thomas,  then  holding  the  Supreme  Court  at  Wor- 
cester, wanted  very  much  indeed  to  go  down  with  the  Bar, 
but  he  thought  it  would  not  quite  do.  The  next  morning 
Mr.  Bacon  had  to  try  a  libel  for  adultery  between  two  par- 
ties living  in  the  town  where  the  Bar  had  had  their  supper. 
He  had  had  no  chance  to  see  his  witnesses,  who  got  into 
town  just  as  the  Court  opened.  So  he  had  to  put  them  on 
and  examine  them  at  a  venture.  The  first  one  he  called  was 
a  grave-looking  citizen.  Mr.  Bacon  asked  him  a  good  many 
questions,  but  could  get  no  answer  which  tended  to  help  his 
case,  and  at  last  he  said,  with  some  impatience :  ' '  Mr.  Wit- 
ness, can  you  tell  me  any  single  fact  which  tends  to  show 
that  this  man  has  committed  adultery?" 


"Well,  all  I  know  about  it,  Squire  Bacon,"  replied  the 
witness,  "is  that  he's  been  seen  at  Charlie  T.'s"— the  inn 
where  Bacon  had  had  his  supper  the  night  before.  There 
was  an  immense  roar  of  laughter  from  the  Bar,  led  by  Judge 
Thomas,  the  ring  of  whose  laugh  could  have  been  heard 
half  way  across  the  square. 

Brother  Bacon,  though  a  modest  and  most  kindly  man, 
used  to  think  he  had  a  monopoly  of  the  abstruser  knowledge 
in  regard  to  real  property  and  real  actions.  It  used  some- 
times to  provoke  him  when  he  found  a  competent  antagonist 
in  cases  involving  such  questions.  There  was  a  suit  in 
which  Bacon  was  for  the  demandant  where  a  creditor  had 
undertaken  to  levy  an  execution  on  property  standing  in  a 
wife's  name  but  claimed  to  have  been  conveyed  to  her  in 
trust  for  the  husband  on  consideration  paid  by  him.  In  such 
cases,  under  the  Massachusetts  law,  the  land  may  be  levied 
upon  as  the  property  of  the  debtor,  notwithstanding  the 
ostensible  title  is  in  another.  The  wife  contested  the  facts. 
But  after  the  bringing  of  the  suit,  the  wife  died,  and  the 
husband  by  her  death  became  tenant  by  the  courtesy.  Of 
course  his  title  as  tenant  by  the  courtesy  was  unaffected  by 
the  previous  levy,  and  his  wife 's  right  to  contest  the  demand 
devolved  upon  him.  The  husband  and  wife  had  both  been 
made  parties  defendant  to  the  suit  under  the  Massachusetts 
practice.  It  would  not  do  to  let  the  creditor  get  judgment. 
Under  the  advice  of  Mr.  Nelson,  afterward  Judge,  one  of  the 
most  learned  and  careful  lawyers,  the  defendant  pleaded  a 
special  non-tenure,  and  the  case  was  reported  to  the  full 
bench  of  the  Supreme  Court,  where  Mr.  Bacon  was  em- 
ployed for  the  plaintiff.  The  report  inaccurately  said  that 
the  defendant  filed  a  disclaimer.  Mr.  Bacon  made  a  very 
learned  argument  to  show  that  upon  the  facts  the  disclaimer 
could  not  be  supported,  and  was  going  on  swimmingly,  un- 
der full  sail.  Mr.  Bacon  said  in  Ms  argument:  "If  he  had 
pleaded  non-tenure,  I  admit,  your  Honors,  he  would  have 
been  pretty  well  off. ' '  Whereupon  Judge  Hoar  sent  for  the 
original  papers,  and  looking  at  them  read  the  plea,  and  said : 
"Isn't  that  a  plea  of  non-tenure?"  Mr.  Bacon  was  obliged 
to  admit  that  it  was.     The  Chief  Justice  said:  "Well,  then. 


the  tenant  is  in  the  condition  which  you  describe  as  being 
pretty  well  off,  isn't  he,  Brother  Bacon!"  Bacon  answered 
with  an  angry  and  impatient  "Humph."  The  Chief  Justice 
said:  "Are  there  any  other  objections  to  the  plea,  Brother 
Bacon?"  "More  than  forty,  your  Honor,"  replied  Bacon 
indignantly,  ' '  which  I  would  state  to  you  at  a  proper  time. ' ' 
The  Chief  Justice  said  that  that  seemed  to  be  the  proper 
time.  But  Mr.  Bacon  sat  down  in  high  dudgeon,  without 
further  remark. 

He  was  the  kindliest  of  men,  both  to  man  and  beast.  I 
once  was  at  a  country  tavern  where  Bacon  and  I  were  to 
dine.  It  was  about  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  I  was  sitting  on  the  veranda  of  the  hotel  waiting 
for  dinner  to  be  ready,  in  the  summer  afternoon.  Mr.  Ba- 
con took  a  little  walk,  and  as  he  came  along  and  was  passing 
the  porch,  a  puppy  ran  after  him,  came  up  behind,  and 
seized  his  pantaloons  in  his  teeth,  making  quite  a  rent  in 
them.  Bacon  looked  round  and  saw  the  mischief,  and  shook 
his  finger  at  the  poor  dog.  I  am  sure  he  had  no  idea  that 
anybody  of  the  human  species  was  within  hearing.  The 
animal  crouched  down  in  great  terror,  expecting  a  beating. 
Mr.  Bacon  paused  a  moment  with  his  uplifted  finger,  and 
addressed  the  cur.  "Why  do  you  try  to  bite  me?  Why  do 
you  tear  my  pantaloons?  Do  you  think  I  can  go  through 
the  Supreme  Court  without  pantaloons?"  With  that  he 
left  the  poor  dog  to  the  reproaches  of  his  own  conscience 
and  took  no  further  notice  of  the  transaction. 

I  ought  perhaps,  as  I  have  told  this  story  at  Brother 
Bacon's  expense,  to  tell  one  at  my  own  where  he  came  out 
decidedly  ahead.  We  were  opposed  in  a  real  estate  case 
where  the  other  evidence  of  the  title  was  pretty  strong 
Bacon's  way,  but  the  ancient  bounds  seemed  to  agree  with 
my  client's  theory.  I  addressed  the  jury  with  all  the  earn- 
estness in  my  power  in  favor  of  the  importance  of  main- 
taining the  ancient  landmarks,  quoting  the  curse  of  the 
Scripture  on  him  that  removed  them,  and  endeavored  to 
make  them  see  how  much  of  the  safety  and  security  of  prop- 
erty depended  on  sticking  to  them  in  spite  of  any  amount 
of  fallible  human  testimony.     I  thought  I  had  made  a  good 


impression.  "WTien  Brother  Bacon  came  to  reply,  lie  told 
the  jury  about  tlie  Eoman  god  Terminus  who  watched  over 
boundaries,  and  after  quite  an  eloquent  description,  he  told 
the  jury :  ' '  Brother  Hoar  always  seems  to  me  when  he  makes 
this  argument,  which  I  have  heard  a  good  many  times  be- 
fore, to  think  he  is  the  god  Terminus,  and  that  the  protection 
of  all  our  modern  landmarks  is  his  exclusive  province." 
The  jury  were  very  much  amused.  I  have  forgotten  how 
the  case  was  decided.  But  I  should  doubtless  remember  if 
it  had  been  decided  in  my  favor. 

Quite  late  in  life  some  of  Mr.  Bacon's  clients,  seeing  that 
he  was  out  of  health,  and  grateful  for  his  long,  faithful  and 
poorly  paid  service,  made  an  arrangement  to  send  him  on  a 
journey  to  Europe.  He  was  gone  a  little  more  than  a  year, 
visiting  England,  France,  Italy  and  Spain,  and  returning 
with  new  vigor  for  another  ten  years  of  hard  work.  His 
interest  in  Europe  had  come  chiefly  from  the  literature 
which  he  had  read  in  his  younger  days.  He  was  not  very 
familiar  with  much  English  prose  or  poetry  later  than  the 
time  of  Addison.  In  one  of  his  first  letters  in  London  he 
announeed  with  great  satisfaction,  "I  have  a  room  not  far 
from  the  celebrated  Westminster  Abbey  mentioned  in  the 

But  Brother  Bacon  ought  not  to  be  remembered  alone,  or 
chiefly,  for  his  eccentricities.  He  was  a  profound,  accurate 
and  able  jurist.  The  great  interests  of  clients  were  safe 
with  him.  To  him  the  profession  of  the  lawyer  was  a  sacred 
office.  I  never  think  of  him  without  recalling  Cicero 's  beau- 
tiful description  in  the  "De  Oratore"  of  the  old  age  of  the 
great  lawyer: 

Quid  est  enim  prseclarius  quam  honoribus  et  reipublicse 
muneribus  perfunctum  senem  posse  suo  jure  dicere  id  quod 
apud  Enium  dicit  ille  Pythias  Apollo,  se  esse  eum,  unde 
sibi,  si  non  populi  et  reges,  at  omnes  sui  cives  consilium 
expetant ; 

suarum  rerum  ineerti  quos  ego  ope  mea  ex 
incertis  certos  compotesqtie  consili  dimitto 
ut  ne  res  temer.e  tractent  turbidas. 


Est  enim  sine  dubio  domus  jurisconsulti  totius  oraculum 

Mr.  Bacon  lived  to  celebrate  bis  golden  wedding,  and 
ended  a  stainless  and  honored  life  in  a  ripe  old  age,  mourned 
by  the  whole  community,  of  which  he  had  been  a  pillar  and 
an  ornament.  His  portrait  hangs  in  the  Court  House  where 
he  would  have  loved  best  to  be  remembered. 

In  my  early  days  at  the  Worcester  Bar  there  were  a  good 
many  bright  men,  young  and  old,  who  had  their  offices  in 
the  country  towns,  but  who  tried  a  good  many  cases  before 
juries.  All  the  courts  for  the  county  in  those  days  were 
held  in  "Worcester.  Among  these  country  lawyers  was  old 
Nat  Wood  of  Fitchburg,  now  a  fine  city;  then  a  thriving 
country  town.  Mr.  Wood  had  a  great  gift  of  story-telling, 
and  he  understood  very  well  the  character  and  ways  of  coun- 
try farmers.  He  used  to  come  down  from  Fitchburg  at  the 
beginning  of  the  week,  stop  at  the  old  Sykes  Tavern  where 
the  jurymen  and  witnesses  put  up,  spend  the  evening  in  the 
bar-room  getting  acquainted  with  the  jurymen  and  telling 
them  stories.  So  when  he  had  a  case  to  try,  he  was  apt  to 
have  a  very  friendly  tribunal.  His  enemies  used  to  say 
that  he  always  contrived  to  sleep  with  one  juryman  himself, 
and  have  his  client  sleep  with  another,  when  he  had  a  case 
coming  on.  He  was  quite  irritable  and  hasty,  and  would 
sometimes  break  out  with  great  indignation  at  some  fancied 
impropriety  of  the  other  side,  without  fully  understanding 
what  was  going  on.  I  was  once  examining  a  witness  who 
had  led  rather  a  roving  and  vagabond  life.  I  asked  him 
where  he  had  lived  and  he  named  seven  different  towns  in 
each  of  which  he  had  dwelt  within  a  very  short  time.  I 
observed:  "Seven  mighty  cities  claimed  great  Homer 
dead. ' '  Wood  instantly  sprang  to  his  feet  with  great  indig- 
nation. "Brother  Hoar,  I  wish  you  would  not  put  words 
into  the  witness's  mouth." 

Wood  was  a  native  of  Sterling,  a  thinly  settled  country 
town  near  the  foot  of  Mount  Wachusett.  The  people  of  that 
town  were  nearly  equally  divided  between  the  Unitarian  and 
Universalist  congregations.  Each  had  its  meeting  house 
fronting  on  the  public  common  or  Green,  as  it  was  called. 


In  the  summer  the  farmers  would  come  to  meeting  from  dis- 
tant parts  of  the  town,  bringing  luncheon  with  them;  have 
a  short  intermission  after  the  morning  service,  and  then 
have  a  second  service  in  the  afternoon.  During  the  recess, 
in  pleasant  summer  weather,  the  men  of  the  two  congrega- 
tions would  gather  together  on  the  Green,  discussing  the 
news  of  the  town,  and  very  often  getting  into  theological 
controversies.  In  the  winter,  they  gathered  in  the  tavern 
or  post-office  in  the  same  way.  There  was  one  Universalist 
champion  who  told  the  gathering  that  he  would  make  any 
man  admit  the  truth  of  Universalism  in  five  minutes.  He 
was  a  well  known  and  doughty  champion,  and  the  Unita- 
rians were  rather  loth  to  tackle  him.  But,  one  Sunday, 
Lawyer  Wood  came  home  to  spend  the  day  at  his  birthplace, 
and  the  Unitarians  thought  it  was  a  good  chance  to  encoun- 
ter the  Universalist  champion.  So  they  accepted  his  chal- 
lenge and  put  Wood  forward  to  meet  him. 

The  Universalist  theologian  began:  "You'll  admit  there 
is  a  God?" 

"No,  I'll  be  damned  if  I  do,"  replied  Wood. 

The  fellow  was  completely  non-plussed.  He  had  got  to 
take  up  his  five  minutes  in  compelling  Wood  to  admit  the 
existence  of  a  Creator.  So  he  was  obliged  to  retire  from 
the  field  discomfited. 

Another  of  our  leaders  at  the  Bar  was  Henry  Chapin.  He 
had  made  his  way  from  a  rather  humble  place  in  life  to  be 
one  of  the  leaders  of  a  very  able  Bar,  Mayor  of  Worcester, 
and  to  hold  a  place  of  large  influence  in  the  various  busi- 
ness, social,  charitable  and  religious  activities  of  the  com- 
munity. He  was  not  specially  learned,  specially  profound 
or  specially  eloquent.  But  he  had  a  rare  gift  of  seizing 
upon  the  thought  which  was  uppermost  in  the  minds  of  ex- 
cellent and  sensible  men,  country  farmers,  skilled  workmen 
in  the  shops,  business  men,  expressing  it  in  a  clear  and  vig- 
orous way,  always  agreeing  with  the  best  sentiment  of  the 
people.  This,  with  an  unfailing  courtesy  and  pleasant  hu- 
mor and  integrity  of  character  and  life  gave  him  great  popu- 
larity. He  was  exceedingly  happy  in  short  speeches  at  din- 
ners or  at  political  meetings.     He  had  a  fund  of  entertaining 



anecdote  wMcli  never  seemed  to  fail.  He  was  very  careful 
not  to  seem  dogmatic,  or  to  assert  himself  too  strongly.  He 
would  put  forward  his  opinion  with  saying,  "It  strikes  my 
mind, "  or  "It  has  occurred  to  me, "  or  "I  thought  perhaps 
it  was  possible,"  or  "It  is  my  impression."  I  remember 
once  protesting  before  old  Judge  Byington  against  some 
objection  which  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  had  made  to  a 
witness  testifying  to  his  impressions.  I  told  the  Judge  that 
Brother  Chapin  never  in  his  life  stated  anything  more 
strongly.  If  you  asked  him  if  he  were  married,  he  would 
say  it  was  his  impression  he  was.  The  Judge  said:  "Well, 
we  have  a  lawyer  in  Berkshire  County  who  has  the  same 
habit.  Only  if  you  ask  him  if  he  is  married  it  is  his  im- 
pression he  isn  't. ' ' 

It  is  said  that  when  he  went  to  see  the  Siamese  Twins,  he 
observed  to  the  exhibitor,  ' '  Brothers,  I  suppose. ' '  But  I 
believe  that  story  had  been  told  before  of  one  of  the  Boyal 

Mr.  Chapin  was  nominated  by  the  Eepublicans  for  Con- 
gress and  accepted  and  would  have  had  a  useful  and  dis- 
tinguished public  life.  But  he  became  alarmed  by  the  oppo- 
sition of  the  Know-Nothings  and  withdrew  from  the  can- 
vass much  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  his  political  friends. 
That  ended  his  political  aspirations.  But  he  was  soon  after 
appointed  to  the  more  congenial  office  of  Judge  of  Probate, 
which  he  discharged  to  great  public  satisfaction  until  his 
lamented  death. 


Unquestionably  the  most  important  character  in  the  legal 
history  of  Massachusetts  is  Chief  Justice  Lemuel  Shaw. 
He  was  a  great  lawyer  before  he  came  to  the  Bench.  He 
had  written  one  or  two  very  able  articles  for  the  North 
American  Review,  one  of  them  a  vigorous  statement  of  the 
opinion  of  Massachusetts  upon  slavery.  He  was  the  author 
of  a  petition  signed  by  many  of  the  leading  men  of  Massa- 
chusetts in  opposition  to  the  high  tariff  of  1828.  No  more 
powerful  statement  of  the  argument  against  high  protection 
can  be  found.  I  have  been  surprised  that  the  modern  free- 
traders have  not  long  ago  discovered  it,  and  brought  it  to 
light.  He  was  one  of  the  managers  of  the  impeachment  of 
Judge  Prescott,  securing  a  conviction  against  a  powerful 
array  of  counsel  for  the  defendant,  which  included  Daniel 
Webster.  He  was  consulted  in  difficult  and  important  mat- 
ters by  eminent  counsel  in  other  counties  than  Suffolk. 

But  all  these  titles  to  distinction  have  been  forgotten  in 
his  great  service  as  Chief  Justice  of  Massachusetts  for  thirty 
years.  No  other  judicial  fame  in  this  country  can  rival  his, 
with  the  single  exception  of  Marshall.  He  was  induced  to 
undertake  the  office  of  Chief  Justice  very  reluctantly,  by 
the  strong  personal  urgency  of  Mr.  Webster.  Mr.  Webster 
used  to  give  a  humorous  account  of  the  difficulty  he  had  in 
overcoming  the  morbid  scruples  of  the  great  simple-hearted 
intellectual  giant.  He  found  Mr.  Shaw  in  his  office  in  a 
cloud  of  tobacco-smoke.  Mr.  Webster  did  not  himself 
smoke,  and  was  at  some  disadvantage  during  the  interview 
for  that  reason. 

Mr.  Shaw  was  rather  short  in  stature  and,  in  the  latter 
part  of  his  life,  somewhat  corpulent.    He  had  a  massive 



head,  a  low  forehead,  and  strong  and  rather  coarse  features. 
He  reminded  you  of  the  statues  of  Gog  and  Magog  in  the 
Guildhall  in  London.  His  hair  came  down  over  his  fore- 
head, and  when  he  had  heen  away  from  home  for  a  week 
or  two,  so  that  his  head  got  no  comhing  but  his  own,  it  was 
in  a  sadly  tangled  mass.  His  eye  was  dull,  except  when  it 
kindled  in  discussion,  or  when  he  was  stirred  to  some  utter- 
ance of  grave  displeasure. 

There  is  an  anecdote  of  Mr.  Choate  which  occasionally 
goes  the  rounds  of  the  papers,  and  which  is  often  repeated 
quite  inaccurately.  The  true  version  is  this.  I  heard  it 
within  a  few  hours  after  it  happened,  and  have  heard  it  at 
first  hand  more  than  once  since. 

Mr.  Choate  was  sitting  next  to  Judge  Hoar  in  the  bar 
when  the  Chief  Justice  was  presiding,  and  the  Suffolk 
docket  was  being  called.  The  Chief  Justice  said  something 
which  led  Mr.  Choate  to  make  a  half-humorous  and  half- 
displeased  remark  about  Shaw's  roughness  of  look  and  man- 
ner, to  which  Judge  Hoar  replied:  "After  all,  I  feel  a 
reverence  for  the  old  Chief  Justice." 

"A  reverence  for  him,  my  dear  fellow?"  said  Choate. 
"So  do  I.  I  bow  down  to  him  as  the  wild  Indian  does 
before  his  wooden  idol.  I  know  he's  ugly;  but  I  bow  to  a 
superior  intelligence. ' ' 

Judge  Shaw's  mind  moved  very  slowly.  When  a  case 
was  argued,  it  took  him  a  good  while  to  get  the  statement 
of  facts  into  his  mind.  It  was  hard  for  him  to  deal  readily 
with  unimportant  matters,  or  with  things  which,  to  other 
people,  were  matters  of  course.  If  the  simplest  motion  were 
made,  he  had  to  unlimber  the  heavy  artillery  of  his  mind, 
go  down  to  the  roots  of  the  question,  consider  the  matter  in 
all  possible  relations,  and  deal  with  it  as  if  he  were  besieg- 
ing a  fortress.  When  he  was  intent  upon  a  subject,  he  was 
exceedingly  impatient  of  anything  that  interrupted  the  cur- 
rent of  his  thought.  So  he  was  a  hard  person  for  young 
advocates,  or  for  any  other  unless  he  were  strong,  self-pos- 
sessed, and  had  the  respect  of  the  Judge.  My  old  friend 
and  partner.  Judge  Washburn,  once  told  me  that  he  dreaded 
the  Law  term  of  the  Court  as  it  approached,  and  sometimes 


felt  that  he  would  rather  lay  his  head  down  on  the  rail,  and 
let  a  train  of  cars  pass  over  it,  than  argue  a  case  before 
Shaw.  The  old  man  was  probably  unconscious  of  this  fail- 
ing. He  had  the  kindest  heart  in  the  world,  was  extremely 
fond  of  little  children  and  beautiful  young  women,  and  espe- 
cially desirous  to  care  for  the  rights  of  persons  who  were 
feeble  and  defenceless. 

I  was  myself  counsel  before  him  in  a  case  where  the  ques- 
tion was  whether  a  heifer  calf,  worth  six  or  seven  dollars, 
the  offspring  of  the  one  cow  which  our  law  reserves  to  a 
poor  debtor  against  attachment,  was  also  exempt.  My  op- 
ponent undertook  to  make  some  merriment  about  the  ques- 
tion, and  there  was  some  laughter  at  the  Bar.  The  old  Chief 
Justice  interposed  with  great  emotion:  "Gentlemen,  re- 
member that  this  is  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  a  great 
many  poor  families."  There  was  no  laughter  after  that, 
and  that  heifer  calf  did  duty  in  many  a  trial  afterward, 
when  the  young  advocates  at  the  Worcester  Bar  had  some 
poor  client  to  defend. 

The  Chief  Justice  had  not  the  slightest  sense  of  humor. 
"When  old  Judge  Wilde,  the  great  real  property  Judge,  died 
after  an  illustrious  judicial  service  of  thirty-five  years, 
somebody  showed  Chief  Justice  Shaw  a  register  published 
in  Boston  which  recorded  his  death,  "Died  in  Boston,  the 
Honorable  Samuel  S.  Wilde,  aged  eighty,  many  years  Jus- 
tice of  the  Peace."  It  was  passed  up  to  the  Bench.  The 
old  Chief  Justice  looked  at  it,  read  it  over  again,  and  said, 
"What  publication  is  this?" 

In  the  old  days,  when  the  lawyers  and  Judges  spent  the 
evenings  of  Court  week  at  the  taverns  on  the  Circuit,  the 
Chief  Justice  liked  to  get  a  company  of  lawyers  about  him 
and  discourse  to  them.  He  was  very  well  informed,  indeed, 
on  a  great  variety  of  matters,  and  his  talk  was  very  interest- 
ing and  full  of  instruction.  But  there  was  no  fun  in  it. 
One  evening  he  was  discoursing  in  his  ponderous  way  about 
the  vitality  of  seed.  He  said:  "I  understand  that  they 
found  some  seed  of  wheat  in  one  of  the  pyramids  of  Egypt, 
wrapped  up  in  a  mummy-case,  where  it  had  been  probably 
some  four  thousand  years  at  least,  carried  it  over  to  Eng- 


land  last  year  and  planted  it,  and  it  came  up  and  they  had 
a  very  good  crop. ' ' 

"Of  mummies,  sir?"  inquired  old  Josiah.  Adams,  a  wag- 
gish member  of  the  Bar. 

' '  No,  Mr.  Adams, ' '  replied  the  Chief  Justice,  with  a  tone 
of  reproof,  and  with  great  seriousness.  "No,  Mr.  Adams, 
not  mummies— wheat." 

Adams  retired  from  the  circle  in  great  discomfiture.  He 
inquired  of  one  of  the  other  lawyers,  afterward,  if  he  sup- 
posed that  the  Chief  Justice  really  believed  that  he  thought 
the  seed  had  produced  mummies,  and  was  told  by  his  friend 
that  he  did  not  think  there  was  the  slightest  doubt  of  it. 

Chief  Justice  Shaw,  though  very  rough  in  his  manner, 
was  exceedingly  considerate  of  the  rights  of  poor  and  friend- 
less persons.  Sometimes  persons  unacquainted  with  the 
ways  of  the  world  would  desire  to  make  their  own  argu- 
ments, or  would  in  some  way  interrupt  the  business  of  the 
court.  The  Chief  Justice  commonly  treated  them  with  great 
consideration.  One  amusing  incident  happened  quite  late 
in  his  life.  A  rather  dissipated  lawyer  who  had  a  case 
approaching  on  the  docket,  one  day  told  his  office-boy  to 
"Go  over  to  the  Supreme  Court  and  see  what  in  hell  they 
are  doing. ' '  The  Court  were  hearing  a  very  important  case 
in  which  Mr.  Choate  was  on  one  side  and  Mr.  Curtis  on  the 
other.  The  Bar  and  the  Court-Eoom  were  crowded  with  lis- 
teners. As  Mr.  Curtis  was  in  the  midst  of  his  argument, 
the  eye  of  the  Chief  Justice  caught  sight  of  a  young  urchin, 
ten  or  eleven  years  old,  with  yellow  trousers  stuffed  into 
his  boots,  and  with  his  cap  on  one  side  of  his  head,  gazing 
intently  up  at  him.  He  said,  "Stop  a  moment,  Mr.  Cur- 
tis. ' '  Mr.  Curtis  stopped,  and  there  was  a  profound  silence 
as  the  audience  saw  the  audacious  little  fellow  standing  en- 
tirely unconcerned.  "What  do  you  want,  my  boy?"  said 
the  Chief  Justice.  ' '  Mr.  P.  told  me  to  come  over  here  and 
see  what  in  hell  you  was  up  to, ' '  was  the  reply.  There  was 
a  dive  at  the  unhappy  youth  by  three  or  four  of  the  deputies 
in  attendance,  and  a  roar  of  laughter  from  the  audience. 
The  boy  was  ejected.  But  the  gravity  of  the  old  Chief 
Justice  was  not  disturbed. 


He  had  a  curiously  awkward  motion,  especially  in  moving 
about  a  parlor  in  social  gatherings,  or  walking  in  the  street. 
I  once  pointed  out  to  a  friend  a  ludicrous  resemblance  be- 
tween his  countenance  and  expression  and  that  of  one  of  the 
tortoises  in  the  illustrations  of  one  of  Agassiz's  works  on 
natural  history.  To  which  my  friend  replied:  "It  is  the 
tortoise  on  which  the  elephant  stands  that  bears  up  the 
foundations  of  the  world,"  alluding  to  the  Hindoo  mythol- 

Chief  Justice  Shaw's  opinions,  as  we  have  them  in  the 
reports,  are  exceedingly  diffuse.  That  practice  would  not 
answer  for  a  generation  which  has  to  consult  the  reports  of 
forty-five  States  and  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  nine  judicial 
circuits  of  the  United  States,  besides  the  reports  of  the  deci- 
sions of  some  of  the  District  Judges,  and  in  most  cases  the 
English  decisions.  But  it  would  be  a  great  public  loss  if 
any  of  Chief  Justice  Shaw's  utterances  were  omitted.  His 
impulse,  when  a  question  was  argued  before  him,  was  to 
write  a  treatise  on  the  subject.  So  his  decisions  in  cases 
where  the  questions  raised  are  narrow  and  unimportant  are 
often  most  valuable  contributions  to  jurisprudence.  He  sel- 
dom passed  over  any  point  or  suggestion  without  remark. 
He  went  to  the  bottom  of  the  case  with  great  patience  and 
incredible  industry.  The  counsel  who  lost  his  case  felt  not 
only  that  he  had  had  the  opinion  of  a  great  and  just  mag- 
istrate, but  that  every  consideration  he  could  urge  for  his 
client  was  respectfully  treated  and  either  yielded  to  or 
answered.  Some  of  his  ablest  and  most  far-reaching  deci- 
sions were  written  after  he  was  eighty  years  old. 

He  possessed,  beyond  any  other  American  Judge,  save 
Marshall,  what  may  be  termed  the  statesmanship  of  juris- 
prudence. He  never  undertook  to  make  law  upon  the  Bench, 
but  he  perceived  with  a  far-sighted  vision  what  rule  of  law 
was  likely  to  operate  beneficially  or  hurtfuUy  to  the  Repub- 
lic. He  was  watchful  to  lay  down  no  doctrine  which  would 
not  stand  this  test.  His  great  judgments  stand  among  our 
great  securities,  like  the  provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Eights. 

The  Chief  Justice  was  a  tower  of  strength  to  the  Massa- 
chusetts judiciary.    But  for  him  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the 


State  would  have  adopted  an  elective  judiciary  or  a  tenure 
limited  to  a  term  of  years.  But  the  whole  people  felt  that 
his  great  integrity  and  wisdom  gave  an  added  security  to 
every  man's  life,  liberty,  and  property.  So  the  proposition 
to  limit  the  judicial  tenure,  although  espoused  by  the  two 
parties  who  together  made  up  a  large  majority  of  the  people 
of  the  State,  was  defeated  when  it  was  submitted  to  a  popu- 
lar vote.  It  is,  however,  a  little  remarkable  that  in  the 
neighboring  State  of  Vermont,  for  many  years  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  were  annually  elected  by  the  Legis- 
lature, a  system  which,  I  believe,  has  worked  on  the  whole 
to  their  satisfaction.  They  have  had  an  able  judiciary.  It 
is  said  that  old  Chief  Justice  Shaw  was  one  evening  dis- 
coursing at  a  meeting  of  the  Boston  Law  Club  to  an  emi- 
nent Vermont  Judge,  who  was  a  guest.  He  said,  "With 
your  brief  judicial  tenure,  sir"—  The  Vermonter  inter- 
rupted him  and  said,  "Why,  our  tenure  of  office  is  longer 
than  yours."  "What  do  you  meant"  said  the  Chief  Jus- 
tice. "I  do  not  understand  you."  "Why,"  was  the  reply, 
"our  Judges  are  elected  for  a  year,  and  you  are  appointed 
as  long  as  you  behave  yourselves. ' ' 

Chief  Justice  Shaw  is  said  to  have  been  a  very  dull  child. 
The  earliest  indication  of  his  gift  of  the  masterly  and  unerr- 
ing judgment  which  discerned  the  truth  and  reason  of  things 
was,  however,  noticed  when  he  was  a  very  small  boy.  His 
mother  one  day  had  a  company  at  tea.  Some  hot  buttered 
toast  was  on  the  table.  When  it  was  passed  to  little  Lemuel 
he  pulled  out  the  bottom  slice,  which  was  kept  hot  by  the 
hot  plate  beneath  and  the  pile  of  toast  above.  His  mother 
reproached  him  quite  sharply.  "You  must  not  do  that, 
Lemuel.  Suppose  everybody  were  to  do  that?"  "Then 
everybody  would  get  a  bottom  slice,"  answered  the  wise 

Judge  Shaw  had  the  sturdy  spirit  and  temper  of  the  old 
seafaring  people  of  Cape  Cod,  among  whom  he  was  born 
and  bred.  He  was  fond  of  stories  of  the  sea  and  of  ships. 
He  liked  to  hear  of  bold  and  adventurous  voyages.  Judge 
Gray  used  to  tell  the  story  of  the  old  Chief's  standing  with 
his  back  to  the  fire,  with  his  coat-tails  under  his  arm,  in  the 


Judges'  room  at  the  Suffolk  Court-House,  one  cold  winter 
morning,  when  the  news  of  the  fate  of  Sir  John  Franklin's 
expedition  or  the  story  of  some  other  Arctic  tragedy  had  just 
reached  Boston  and  was  in  the  morning  papers. 

"I  hope,  sir,"  said  Judge  Bigelow,  "that  there  will  be  no 
more  of  these  voyages  to  discover  the  North  Pole." 

' '  I  want  'em  to  find  that  open  Polar  sea,  sir, ' '  said  Shaw. 

"But  don't  you  think,"  said  Judge  Bigelow,  "that  it  is 
too  bad  to  risk  so  many  human  lives,  and  to  compel  the  sail- 
ors to  encounter  the  terrible  suffering  and  danger  of  these 
Arctic  voyages!" 

"I  think  they'll  find  it  yet,  sir,"  was  all  the  reply  Bige- 
low could  get. 

Judge  Shaw,  in  his  latter  days,  was  reverenced  by  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  as  if  he  were  a  demi-god.  But  in 
his  native  county  of  Barnstable  he  was  reverenced  as  a 
God.  One  winter,  when  the  Supreme  Court  held  a  special 
session  at  Barnstable  for  the  trial  of  a  capital  case.  Judge 
Merrick,  who  was  one  of  the  Judges,  came  out  of  the  Court- 
house just  at  nightfall,  when  the  whole  surface  of  the  earth 
was  covered  with  ice  and  slush,  slipped  and  fell  heavily, 
breaking  three  of  his  ribs.  He  was  taken  up  and  carried 
to  his  room  at  the  hotel,  and  lay  on  the  sofa  waiting  for  the 
doctor  to  come.  While  the  Judge  lay,  groaning  and  in 
agony,  the  old  janitor  of  the  court-house,  who  had  helped 
pick  him  up,  wiped  off  the  wet  from  his  clothes  and  said  to 
him,  "Judge  Merrick,  how  thankful  you  must  be  it  was  not 
the  Chief  Justice!"  Poor  Merrick  could  not  help  laugh- 
ing, though  his  broken  ribs  were  lacerating  his  flesh. 

Next  to  Chief  Justice  Shaw  in  public  esteem,  when  I  came 
to  the  Bar  in  December,  1849,  was  Mr.  Justice  Wilde.  He 
was  nearly  eighty  years  old,  and  began  to  show  some  signs 
of  failing  powers.  But  those  signs  do  not  appear  in  his 
recorded  opinions.  He  was  a  type  of  the  old  common- 
lawyer  in  appearance  and  manner  and  character.  He  would 
have  been  a  fit  associate  for  Lord  Coke,  and  would  never  have 
given  way  to  him.  I  suppose  he  was  never  excelled  as  a  real- 
property  lawyer  in  this  country.  He  had  the  antiquated 
pronunciation  of  the  last  century,  a  venerable  gray  head 


and  wrinkled  countenance,  with  heavy  gray  eyebrows.  He 
seemed  to  the  general  public  to  be  nothing  but  a  walking 
abridgment.  Still,  he  was  a  very  well-informed  man,  and 
had  represented  a  district  of  what  is  now  the  State  of  Maine 
in  Congress  with  great  distinction.  A  friend  of  mine  went 
rather  late  to  church  at  King's  Chapel  one  Sunday  when 
the  congregation  had  got  some  way  in  the  service,  and  was 
shown  into  the  pew  immediately  in  front  of  old  Judge  Wilde. 
The  Judge  was  just  uttering  in  a  distinct,  clear  tone,  "Lord, 
teach  me  Thy  statoots."  It  was  the  only  petition  he 
needed  to  have  granted  to  make  him  a  complete  Judge.  Of 
the  Lord's  common  law  he  was  a  thorough  master. 

He  was  no  respecter  of  persons.  He  delivered  his  judg- 
ments with  an  unmoved  air,  as  if  he  had  footed  up  a  column 
of  figures  and  were  announcing  the  result.  "When  I  was  in 
the  Law  School,  Mr.  "Webster  was  retained  to  argue  an  im- 
portant real  estate  case  before  Judge  "Wilde  in  Suffolk 
County.  Mr.  Webster  was  making  what  would  have  been 
a  powerful  argument  on  a  question  of  land-title  but  for  a 
statute  passed  since  the  days  of  his  constant  practice,  which 
had  not  come  to  his  knowledge.  There  was  a  great  audi- 
ence, and  when  Mr.  Webster  had  got  his  point  fairly  stated, 
he  was  interrupted  by  Wilde.  ' '  Pooh,  pooh,  Mr.  Webster. ' ' 
The  Judge  pointed  out  that  Webster  had  overlooked  one  link 
in  the  chain  of  his  antagonist's  title. 

"But,"  said  Mr.  Webster  in  reply,  "the  descent  tolls  the 
entry. ' ' 

"That  rule  is  abolished  by  the  statoot,  sir." 

"Why  didn't  you  tell  me  that?"  said  Webster  angrily  to 
his  junior. 

Another  of  our  great  old  Judges  was  Judge  Fletcher.  He 
had  had  a  great  practice  as  an  advocate  in  Boston,  especially 
as  a  commercial  lawyer.  He  had  a  great  power  of  clear 
statement.  He  brought  out  his  utterances  in  a  queer,  jerk- 
ing fashion,  protruding  his  lips  a  little  as  he  hesitated  at 
the  beginning  of  his  sentences.  But  he  knew  how  to  con- 
vey Ms  meaning  to  the  apprehension  of  Courts  and  juries. 
He  left  the  Bench  less  than  two  years  after  I  came  to  the  Bar. 
I  never  had  but  one  important  case  before  him.    He  was  a 


bachelor.  He  was  very  interesting  in  conversation,  liked 
the  company  of  young  men,  who  never  left  him  without 
carrying  away  some  delightful  anecdote  or  shrewd  and  pithy 

A  lawyer  from  the  country  told  me  one  day  that  he  had 
just  been  in  Fletcher's  office  to  get  his  opinion.  While  he 
was  in  the  office,  old  Ebenezer  Francis,  a  man  said  to  be 
worth  $8,000,000,  then  the  richest  man  in  New  England, 
came  to  consult  him  about  a  small  claim  against  some  neigh- 
bor. Fletcher  interrupted  his  consultation  with  my  friend 
and  listened  to  Mr.  Francis's  story.  In  those  days,  parties 
could  not  be  witnesses  in  their  own  cases.  Fletcher  advised 
his  client  that  although  he  had  an  excellent  case,  the  evi- 
dence at  his  command  was  not  sufficient  to  prove  it,  and 
advised  against  bringing  an  action.  Francis,  who  was  quite 
avaricious,  left  the  office  with  a  heavy  heart.  "When  he  had 
gone,  Fletcher  turned  to  my  friend  and  said :  ' '  Isn  't  it  piti- 
ful, sir,  to  see  an  old  critter,  wandering  about  our  streets, 
destitute  of  proof?" 

But  the  most  interesting  and  racy  character  among  our 
old  Judges  was  Theron  Metcalf.  He  used  to  say  of  himself 
— a  saying  that  did  him  great  injustice— that  he  was  taken 
to  fill  a  gap  in  the  Court  as  people  take  an  old  hat  to  stop  a 
broken  window.  He  undervalued  his  own  capacity.  He 
was  not  a  good  Judge  to  preside  at  jury  trials.  He  had 
queer  and  eccentric  notions  of  what  the  case  was  all  about, 
and  while  he  would  state  a  principle  of  law  with  extraordi- 
nary precision  and  accuracy  he  had  not  the  gift  of  making 
practical  application  of  the  law  to  existing  facts.  So  a  great 
many  of  his  rulings  were  set  aside,  and  it  did  not  seem,  when 
he  had  held  a  long  term  of  Court,  that  a  great  deal  had  been 
accomplished.  But  he  was  a  very  learned  common-lawyer. 
His  memory  was  a  complete  digest  of  the  decisions  down  to 
his  time.  He  comprehended  with  marvellous  clearness  the 
precise  extent  to  which  any  adjudged  case  went,  and  would 
state  its  doctrine  with  mathematical  precision. 

He  hated  statutes.  He  was  specially  indignant  at  the 
abolition  of  special  pleading.  He  sent  word  to  me,  when  I 
was  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  the  Massachu- 


setts  Senate,  asking  to  have  a  provision  enacted  for  sim- 
plifying the  process  of  bringing  before  the  full  Bench  for 
revision  the  proceedings  in  habeas  corpus,  or  mandamus, 
or  certiorari,  or  some  other  special  writ,  I  forget  now  what. 
I  called  upon  him  at  once,  and  pointed  out  to  him  that  ex- 
actly what  he  wanted  was  accomplished  by  the  Practice  Act 
of  1852.  This  was  the  statute  under  which  all  our  legal 
proceedings  in  cases  affecting  personal  property  were  had. 
Metcalf  said,  with  great  disgust:  "I  have  said,  sir,  that  if 
they  did  not  repeal  that  thing  I  would  read  it." 

He  used  to  enliven  his  judgments  with  remarks  showing 
a  good  deal  of  shrewd  wisdom.  In  one  case  a  man  was  in- 
dicted for  advertising  a  show  without  a  license.  The  de- 
fendant insisted  that  the  indictment  was  insufficient  because 
it  set  out  merely  what  the  show  purported  to  be,  and  not 
what  it  really  was.  On  which  the  Judge  remarked:  "The 
indictment  sets  out  all  that  is  necessary,  and,  indeed,  all 
that  is  safe.  The  show  often  falls  short  of  the  promise  in 
the  show-bill." 

There  was  once  a  case  before  him  for  a  field-driver  who 
had  impounded  cattle  under  the  old  Massachusetts  law. 
The  case  took  a  good  many  days  to  try,  and  innumerable 
subtle  questions  were  raised.  The  Judge  began  his  charge 
to  the  jury:  "Gentlemen  of  the  jury,  a  man  who  takes  up 
a  cow  straying  in  a  highway  is  a  fool. ' ' 

Another  time  there  was  a  contest  as  to  the  value  of  some 
personal  property  which  had  been  sold  at  auction.  One  side 
claimed  that  the  auction-sale  was  a  fair  test  of  the  value. 
The  other  claimed  that  property  that  was  sold  at  auction  was 
generally  sold  at  a  sacrifice.  Metcalf  said  to  the  jury: 
"According  to  my  observation,  things  generally  bring  at 
auction  all  they  are  worth,  except  carpets. ' ' 

I  once  tried  a  case  before  him  against  the  Norwich  Rail- 
road for  setting  fire  to  the  house  of  a  farmer  by  a  spark 
from  a  locomotive.  It  was  a  warm  summer  afternoon  when 
the  house  was  burnt  up.  There  was  no  fire  in  the  house  ex- 
cept a  few  coals  among  the  ashes  in  a  cooking  stove  where 
the  dinner  had  been  cooked  some  hours  before.  The  rail- 
road was  very  near  the  house.     There  was  a  steep  up-grade, 


so  that  the  engineers  were  tempted  to  open  the  bonnet  of 
their  smokestacks  for  a  better  draught.  We  called  as  a  wit- 
ness a  sturdy,  round-faced,  fat  old  woman,  who  testified  that 
she  was  sitting  at  her  window,  knitting,  in  a  house  some 
little  distance  away,  when  the  train  went  by.  She  put  in  a 
mark  to  see,  as  she  expressed  it,  "how  many  times  round" 
she  could  knit  before  supper.  A  few  minutes  after,  she 
heard  a  cry  of  fire,  and  looked  out  and  saw  a  blaze  on  the 
roof  of  her  neighbor's  house,  just  kindling,  close  to  the  eaves 
on  the  side  where  the  engine  had  passed.  She  threw  down 
the  stocking  and  went  to  help.  The  stocking  was  found 
after  the  fire  with  the  mark  just  as  she  left  it.  So  we 
claimed  that  we  could  tell  pretty  well  how  long  the  time  had 
been  between  the  passing  of  the  train  and  the  breaking  out 
of  the  fire.  Judge  Metcalf,  who  was  always  fussy  and  in- 
terfering, said:  "How  can  we  tell  anything  by  that,  unless 
we  know  how  large  the  stocking  was  ? ' '  The  old  lady,  with 
a  most  bland  smile,  turned  to  the  Judge  as  if  she  were  sooth- 
ing an  infant,  lifted  up  the  hem  of  her  petticoats,  and  ex- 
hibited a  very  sturdy  ankle  and  calf,  and  said,  "Just  the 
size  I  wear,  your  Honor."  There  was  a  roar  of  laughter 
in  the  court-house.  The  incident  was  published  in  the  morn- 
ing paper  the  next  day,  much  to  the  Judge's  indignation. 
He  addressed  the  audience  when  he  came  into  Court  in  the 
morning,  and  said:  "I  see  the  Worcester  Spy  has  been  try- 
ing to  put  a  fool's  cap  on  my  head." 

Judge  Metcalf  told  me  this  story  about  Chief  Justice  Par- 
sons. The  Chief  Justice's  manner  to  the  Bar,  as  is  well- 
known,  was  exceedingly  rough.  He  was  no  respecter  of 
persons,  and  treated  the  old  and  eminent  lawyers  quite  as 
harshly  as  the  youngsters.  The  Bar  used  to  call  him  Ursa 
Major.  The  Chief  Justice  used  to  look  over  the  pleadings 
carefully  before  the  trials  began.  It  was  in  the  time  when 
special  pleading  often  brought  the  issue  to  be  decided  into 
a  narrow  compass.  Soon  after  the  case  was  begun,  the 
Judge  would  take  the  case  out  of  the  hands  of  the  counsel 
and  examine  the  witnesses  himself,  and  give  an  opinion 
which  was  likely  to  be  implicitly  followed  by  the  jury. 
Jabez  Upham,  of  Brookfield,  in  Worcester  County,  Mr.  Jus- 


tice  Gray's  grandfather,  once  sent  his  office-boy  to  Court 
with  a  green  bag  containing  his  papers,  thinking  there  was 
no  use  in  going  himself.  At  last  the  leading  members  of  the 
Bar  in  Boston  got  very  angry,  and  four  or  five  of  them 
agreed  together  to  teach  the  old  Chief  a  lesson.  So  they 
sat  down  to  a  trial  in  the  Supreme  Court  where  Parsons 
was  presiding.  Pretty  soon  he  interfered  with  the  lawyer 
who  was  putting  in  the  case  for  the  plaintiff,  in  his  rough 
way.  The  lawyer  rose  and  said :  "I  cannot  take  care  of  my 
client's  rights  where  my  own  are  not  respected,"  or  some- 
thing to  that  effect.  "I  will  ask  Brother  Sullivan  to  take 
my  place."  Sullivan,  who  was  possessed  of  the  case,  took 
the  place.  The  trial  went  on  a  little  while,  when  something 
happened  which  offended  Sullivan.  He  rose  and  said  he 
could  not  go  on  with  the  case  after  his  Honor's  remark,  and 
would  ask  Brother  So-and-So,  perhaps  Otis,  to  take  his 
place.  This  happened  three  or  four  times  in  succession. 
The  Chief  Justice  saw  the  point  and  adjourned  the  Court 
very  early  for  the  noon  recess,  and  went  to  the  house  of  his 
colleague,  Judge  Sewall,  who  lived  out  somewhere  on  the 
Neck,  called  him  out  and  said:  "You  must  go  down  and 
hold  that  Court.  There  is  a  Gonspir&aaj  sir."  Parsons 
never  held  a  nisi-prius  term  in  Suffolk  again. 

Chief  Justice  Shaw  used  to  tell  with  great  indignation  the 
story  of  his  first  appearance  before  Parsons,  when  a  young 
man.  There  was  a  very  interesting  question  of  the  law  of 
real  property,  and  Samuel  Dexter,  then  the  head  of  the  Bar, 
was  on  the  other  side.  Parsons  was  interested  in  the  ques- 
tion as  soon  as  it  was  stated,  and  entered  into  a  discussion 
with  Dexter  in  which  they  both  got  earnestly  engaged.  The 
Chief  Justice  intimated  his  opinion  very  strongly  and  was 
just  deciding  it  in  Dexter 's  favor,  when  the  existence  of  the 
young  man  on  the  other  side  occurred  to  him.  He  looked 
over  the  bar  at  Shaw  and  said:  "Well,  young  man,  do  you 
think  you  can  aid  the  Court  any  in  this  matter?"  "I  think 
I  can,  sir, ' '  said  Shaw  with  spirit.  Parsons  listened  to  him, 
but,  I  believe,  remained  of  his  first  opinion. 

Judge  Metcalf  in  the  time  when  he  was  upon  the  Bench 
had  the  credit,  I  do  not  know  how  well  deserved  it  was,  of 


not  being  much  given  to  hospitality.  He  was  never  covet- 
ous, and  he  was  very  fond  of  society  and  conversation.  But 
I  fancy  he  had  some  fashions  of  his  own  in  housekeeping 
which  he  thought  were  not  quite  up  to  the  ways  of  modem 
life.  At  any  rate,  he  was,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  known 
to  invite  any  of  his  brethren  upon  the